Maybe I just need to quit Facebook.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I thought of starting a thread called "Problem Solved" for all these questions/complaints about real life issues that could be so easily solved by people stopping what they are doing, but it seemed a bit bitchy. So....

I'm not a Facebook person. I've only seen pages of friends/family occasionally to see what was up. None of it convinced me it was a good idea, but I absolutely do see the value of keeping up with family and friends who you don't get to see often. That being said, not everything in life has to be a contest of who is right and who is wrong. Not every place has to be a place where we have an overwhelming need to "set people straight". Relax a little and participate in the things on Facebook that you do enjoy.    Unfollow those friends who irritate you. I understand you can do that without "unfriending" them. Just use this as one opportunity in your day to relax and not have to prove you are right - even if you are.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

That being said, not everything in life has to be a contest of who is right and who is wrong

::takes away GEL's YM card::



I have a friend on my facebook page who posts stuff like this.  I posted back once b/c that article about how 95% of people who get root canals have cancer article popped up AGAIN, she was like the third person to post it to my wall.

So I posted a rebuttal and all I got in response was "people need to know the truth".

All righty then.

So now I just click that little box on the side of those posts and block them from view.   They can post to their hearts content and I save myself a concussion.     As I said on the last thread on this subject it is human nature to form an opinion first and then look for data to back it up.   I am not going to change anyone's mind.

Even if I could Facebook really isn't a forum designed for that kind of debate.   By the time I've crafted a rebuttal everyone is onto the latest pictures of Kim's ass or whatever.

[Green Eyed Lady]

LOL!!

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 10, 2015 8:04:20 GMT -5 oped said:

www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp

Here is what I used in reply Virgil. It very much does refute the claims.

I suppose it depends on what the claims originally were.

snopes.com takes on "32 Girls Have Died; 11,916 adverse events already reported to the CDC ... and counting.", and concludes that "although this information is accurate in a strictly literal sense", both "none of these adverse events were found to be any more common after HPV vaccination than among the [other vaccination] comparison groups" and "it seems that of those dozens of deaths, only a handful could possibly be linked to Gardasil. And based on the data available, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that even those deaths were caused by the vaccine."

Hence claiming that Gardasil opponents have very likely fallen prey to a post hoc fallacy.

Re Dr. Harper, snopes.com concludes: "Given questions about how long the vaccine is effective for, she questioned the efficacy of giving shots to girls as young as 11 years old in parts of the world (such as the U.S.) where women regularly undergo safety Pap screening repeatedly over their lifetimes, saying that the chances of their contracting cervical cancer may be less than the 'small' risks associated with the vaccine." and "Dr. Harper has expressed concerns such as how long protection from vaccines such as Gardasil will last (which is not a safety issue, but rather an issue of whether the expected results of an HPV immunization program will justify the financial costs), and whether the marketing of Gardasil might lead some women to avoid taking other STD-preventing precautions, but she has never said that Gardasil 'doesn't work,' 'wasn't tested,' or was 'dangerous'."

Hence your anti-vax friend is guilty of distorting what Dr. Harper said if (s)he claimed Harper's claims included 'doesn't work,' 'wasn't tested,' or 'dangerous'.

Even presuming your anti-vax friend accepted snopes' analysis, this leaves the door open for a host of issues: Are the costs of the program justifiable? Does the vaccine lead to avoidance of other STD-preventing precautions? Is there a better way to determine causality with VAERS reporting such that deaths can be definitively linked or unlinked with Gardasil? Is there a transcript of Dr. Harper's remarks at the anti-vax conference? Do the risks of vaccination outweigh the risks of cancer in young girls?

It's a made-for-message board issue. Not Facebook. Facebook is made for posting articles, canned debunkings, canned counter-debunkings, etc.

More to the point, this appears to be a sensible debunking (unlike beachbum's article).

Aug 10, 2015 8:04:20 GMT -5 oped said:

This is a topic that can be debated. But using misinformation and false data and conclusions is no way to form an opinion or influence people to do so. Its possible for either side to make an honest choice that is opposite the other. But the choice being forwarded in the original article is not honest.

That appears very much to be the case. The question is: do you consider it life or morally threatening? If yes, unfriend the person. If no, post your rebuttal and get over your need to convert people on Facebook. As you say yourself, this is a topic that can be (I would say "must be") debated, and Facebook isn't the venue for it.

Aug 10, 2015 8:04:20 GMT -5 oped said:

My kids final health project last year was to research and make their own decision about G and believe me, I was ready as always to play devil's advocate, but as I've also taught them how to research sources and couldn't find anything they thought was legitimate to raise objections test mattered to them (and since they are older and have always individually tolerated vaccines well) they have both decided to get the vaccine.

It's a good exercise.

Even so, I assert that no matter how sensible their conclusions may be (and I agree the known data strongly favour pro-vaxers), they're going to be based on "agree with Mom" as much as objective research. That's entrenched human nature.

If you want critical thinking, play Devil's advocate with teeth. Don't just toss out Internet memes. Ask your kids what they think about the known unknowns and about the pointed limitations of medical research. Ask them what they think about the things short-term trials and simple correlations can't predict. Ask them about cofactors, confounding factors, and the inability to quantify these things, especially in the longer term. More importantly, ask them why they're willing to be vaccinated for HPV if they're already going to be taking the necessary precautions of using condoms and knowing the full sexual history of the men they sleep with. I think you'll get a bit more critical thinking if the "right" answer isn't the answer you want to hear.

You should get somebody neutral to take on the task since you're... eh... zealous... about the issue. If there's any wiggle room, the kids aren't going to tick off Mom, and despite anything you say to them (or us) they know perfectly well that coming to a "no vaccine for me" conclusion will royally tick off Mom, or at least put her into "must. convince. child." mode. You can claim they're the most objective kids on Earth and you wouldn't dream of biasing them; but I can't believe you. The notion of a child unbiased by a parent is a myth. The only variable is how clued-in the parents are to the bias.

You might find out that, in a neutral setting, your kids' opinion is "I don't think I really need the vaccine, but mom would go ballistic if I don't get it, so...".

[Tennesseer]

A relative of mine posts stuff on Facebook that I often have to provide him information which does not support his 'facts'.  When I ask him why he posts it without checking the facts, he states he is simply passing along the information.

[MJ2.0]

damn Virgil, I'm agreeing with you too much today. I need to lie down...

Facebook IMO is for kid/animal/yummy food/fun event pics, silly memes, and catching up with family/friends - not for street corner soapboxing.

[Deleted]

"Hence your anti-vax friend is guilty of distorting what Dr. Harper said if (s)he claimed Harper's claims included 'doesn't work,' 'wasn't tested,' or 'dangerous'."

Bingo!

"Even presuming your anti-vax friend accepted snopes' analysis, this leaves the door open for a host of issues: Are the costs of the program justifiable? Does the vaccine lead to avoidance of other STD-preventing precautions? Is there a better way to determine causality with VAERS reporting such that deaths can be definitively linked or unlinked with Gardasil? Is there a transcript of Dr. Harper's remarks at the anti-vax conference? Do the risks of vaccination outweigh the risks of cancer in young girls?"

Yes. I'd love to discuss on that level.


Except I didn't take a pro vaccine approach Virgil. I was extremely wishy washy and argued the opposite side of whichever until they made their decisions. If anything I appeared more anti vac through the discussion. Although I tried to balance so as not to sway by positive or negative venues.

[Deleted]

I'm not zealous about vaccines pro or con. I think they have a place AND I think there are legitimate questions about their use.

I'm zealous about INFORMATION. About conclusions being factual and sound and honestly represented.

This wasn't about Gardasil. It was about the rampant, almost joyous propagation of opinion and misinformation and speculation as fact.

[Deleted]

I'm sure I do bias my kids to some degree. I attempt to control it as much as possible and hope to bias them most towards tolerance and logical decision making.

I would never go ballistic if my kids didn't get a vaccine Virgil. Their bodies are their own and at their ages they have the capacity to make those types of decisions for themselves. I actually don't know if I would have gotten it myself? But I'm not raising clones or doormats.

My kids have actually helped me to identify some of my gender biases in how I have approached or worded things, and I try to modify those going forward.

[Pants]

Aug 9, 2015 18:33:19 GMT -5 @donethat said:

I am still sort of a FB newbie but I have discovered the magical "keep your friends but lose their crap" setting where I can stay friends and even follow them but not see all their friends, fantasies, follies and freaky causes.  My page is so pathetic b/c I don't think folks will give a damn about my every thought or bowel action.

Please tell me more about this.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 10, 2015 10:15:07 GMT -5 oped said:

I would never go ballistic if my kids didn't get a vaccine Virgil. Their bodies are their own and at their ages they have the capacity to make those types of decisions for themselves. I actually don't know if I would have gotten it myself? But I'm not raising clones or doormats.

I think your intentions are good, and that you've very likely instilled a "go out and get the facts" approach to some degree. I can't categorically deny your claim.

I'm suggesting that you be extremely skeptical of your kids' objectivity. Kids are lousy at being objective, not so lousy at emulating their parents, which includes inheriting their views, attitude, and research techniques, which can heavily influence conclusions.

My biggest worry is that parental advocacy for the vaccine innately belies the concept of responsible sex. Let's forget abstinence for now (since I realize this is a post-sexual-revolution crowd) and call responsible sex "protected sex with an individual with a known sexual history". Gardasil, or any HPV vaccine, is unnecessary for individuals partaking exclusively in responsible sex. The chances of side effects from the vaccine significantly outweigh the risk of cervical cancer in these circumstances, to say nothing of the known unknowns. Hence the only logical reason one would be vaccinated for HPV is if one expects there to be at least the reasonable risk of engaging in non-responsible sex.

Hence if a parent says to a child, "You really should be vaccinated." this message implicitly carries with it "...just in case, because I believe there's a reasonable risk of you engaging in non-responsible sex." You can't avoid this. You can preach "I expect you to be responsible. I trust that you'll be." all you want. The fact is that actions speak louder than words, and your actions--specifically, your advocacy for getting the vaccine--betray your implicit lack of trust in the child.

This is not something you want weighing on the mind of the child in a moment of temptation. At that moment, in the midst of peer pressure, hormones and excitement, you want their rational mind to be screaming at them "You promised Mom you would use a condom, and she told you she trusted you."  You don't want it to be "Mom told you she trusted you, but she knew situations like this would happen where it just isn't practical. You're vaccinated for HPV, so you took care of that risk. Let's do this.", which is frankly the more reasonable conclusion given you don't implicitly trust your child and your advice clearly reflects this.

Accepting your child's "own decision" to be vaccinated won't have as much effect, but kids still know their parents. If deep down you believe your child should be vaccinated, they'll perceive it. They'll also measure your feedback to their being vaccinated. Is your reaction "Why did you get vaccinated when there's no need for it?" (in which case you can vet their rationale) or is it, "OK. Fine." in which case you can tack on "...because we both know there's a reasonable risk of you having non-responsible sex".

Psychological studies have consistently shown that people are significantly more likely to keep promises--especially under pressure--if they've made a sound, explicit moral declaration to keep them, and if they know the people they've promised have faith in them. This is why parents talking with their kids about sex, getting them to make explicit promises, letting them know they're trusted, is so important. The last thing we want to do is vitiate these agreements by saying through our actions that we really don't trust our children, and that's very easy to do here.

That's my concern. The risks of HPV and/or HPV vaccine pale in comparison to the other risks involved as far as I'm concerned, so get stuck or not as the wind so blows.

[HoneyBBQ]

I just unfriend. Whatever. It's only happened a few times over the years - mostly planned parenthood/abortion diatribes. And one Trumpinator. LOL. No loss to me. I just post pictures of my kid or dogs. Never anything political. 

[Deleted]

Virgil, I'm not sure why you can't understand that I did not advocate for or against the vaccine? 

In their deciding to get it we specifically discussed the fact that, like sunscreen, there are limited applications here and that does not replace other responsible decision making. 

I am not personally of the opinion that non reproductive sex is bad. And I don't think it says I don't trust my children to think that they might one day engage in such, if it is in fact their choice to do so...

Its interesting to to read about what kind of parent you think I must be though  

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 10, 2015 12:44:13 GMT -5 oped said:

Virgil, I'm not sure why you can't understand that I did not advocate for or against the vaccine? 

In their deciding to get it we specifically discussed the fact that, like sunscreen, there are limited applications here and that does not replace other responsible decision making. 

I am not personally of the opinion that non reproductive sex is bad. And I don't think it says I don't trust my children to think that they might one day engage in such, if it is in fact their choice to do so...

Its interesting to to read about what kind of parent you think I must be though

My advice applies to you to the extent that you meet the "prerequisites" therein. If you're not a "Rah rah HPV vaccine!" type, then by all means disregard the portion directed at "Rah rah HPV vaccine!" parents.

While I often address replies to individuals, I'm more generally speaking to the readership at large.

Incidentally, I'm not contrary to non-reproductive sex either. I don't think a solitary active poster on the board is.

[Deleted]

Well, a lot of the things that do make the hpv vaccine more desirable, in my personal estimation, are the non reproductive, and not as conducive to other preventative measures acts. That's why I mentioned it.

[zibazinski]

I had to laugh and point out to DH that one of my extremely liberal friends is whining about posting nothing political to her FB. She's the one who is constantly a Hillary synchophant and any other liberal whack job out there.

[zibazinski]

But it's OKAY when she does it.

[Virgil Showlion]

It sounds like Facebook is a whole barrel of monkeys fun. I'm constantly hearing things that made me wish I had an account.

[Miss Tequila]

Again, why do you care so much? If what she posts annoys you, hide her or unfriend. I don't get trying to call her out for being stupid.

[Deleted]

I care T because as I've noted I worry about the general state of society and where it goes when people can't distinguish between good information and bad...

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 10, 2015 13:37:48 GMT -5 oped said:

I care T because as I've noted I worry about the general state of society and where it goes when people can't distinguish between good information and bad...

They line up to demand carbon credits as a "solution" to climate change?

No, wait. I've got it. They bet the farm on the US recovery.

All you can do is post your rebuttals and be patient with people. Besides, people electing not to HPV vaccinate their kids is no skin off your nose.

[Deleted]

Virgil, I'm going to try this one more time. I DO NOT CARE if people get the HPV vaccine or not. I CARE that they would use misinformation and faulty sources as the basis of that decision. 

[MJ2.0]

oped, I agree with you about the vaccine and what you're saying regarding people using faulty sources of info to draw their conclusions, but you're fighting an uphill battle. This is akin to you "spreading the good Word" to atheists, wiccans, or otherwise non-Christians. You are just trying to do what's right to save mankind - just like the Bible-thumpers are. And like them you have to realize that people will heed your message when they are ready. Trying to "convert" people who already hold strong beliefs rarely goes well.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 10, 2015 13:56:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Virgil, I'm going to try this one more time. I DO NOT CARE if people get the HPV vaccine or not. I CARE that they would use misinformation and faulty sources as the basis of that decision.

I get that.

In this specific case, are there any consequences to using "misinformation and faulty sources as the basis of decision" except for whether or not people are vaccinated? No.

If you're not upset about that consequence, it makes no sense for you to be upset about the misinformation leading to it.

If you're generally upset about the dissemination of faulty information, unplug your Internet, hide in your basement, superglue your ears shut, and have your kids feed you with yogurt cups, because the Internet is a paradise for misinformation and the world at large isn't much better. Accept that there are limitations on where and how you can debate people, there are limits on how much you can reasonably persuade people, and that we live in a society increasingly skeptical of all authority.

If not being able to put the whammy on these misinformed souls is causing you to resent them personally, unfriend them or get the heck off of Facebook. If you consider their misinformation life or morally threatening, unfriend them or get the heck off of Facebook. Otherwise smile, post your rebuttal, pat yourself on the back, and get on with your life.

[Deleted]

Doesn't that scare the living shit out of you though?

I guess people have always been susceptible to misinformation that tells them what they want to hear or are inclined to believe. Maybe I'm wrong that it's not so much worse today... Maybe it's just more easily displayed... I don't know. 

It kind if scares me though...

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

It is scary BUT it  has been this way ever since vaccines were invented.   You should read the book On Immunity.   It's a really good read about the history of vaccinations and the debate about them. 

People used to buy miracle cures that were little more than horse piss and arsenic with a shitload of moonshine thrown in.   I don't think it's that much worse than it used to be.   I think it's more we used to be limited to the stupidity of our nearest social unit.  Now thanks the internet we have it shoved in our faces that EVERYONE is stupid, there is no escape.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Just to stir the pot: 

www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752

[Wisconsin Beth]

Aug 10, 2015 15:11:18 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Just to stir the pot: 

www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752

He's wrong.  The best Doctor is Christopher Eccleston.    And yes, I've seen TV for Doctors 1-7 and Eccleston to current Doctor.  Haven't heard the radio plays but have read a lot of books.  2nd up is John Hurt.  3rd is David Tenant.  Back to your regularly scheduled argument. 

[chiver78]

Aug 10, 2015 15:11:18 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Just to stir the pot: 

www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-updated-7611752

ha! I posted an earlier version of this on my own FB wall.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 11:05:29 GMT -5 Pants said:

Aug 9, 2015 18:33:19 GMT -5 @donethat said:

I am still sort of a FB newbie but I have discovered the magical "keep your friends but lose their crap" setting where I can stay friends and even follow them but not see all their friends, fantasies, follies and freaky causes.  My page is so pathetic b/c I don't think folks will give a damn about my every thought or bowel action.

Please tell me more about this.

OK, here goes.  Let's say good friend Suzy posts something from WeBeCrazy.com about her hot-button topic of choice, maybe politics.  Over a little bit to the right of your friend's name you will see a small down arrow. Click on the arrow and you see several choices such as "Hide this post" (just what it says, you won't see this particular post again), "Unfollow Suzy" (you won't see anything Suzy posts unless you deliberately go to her page and look), and "Hide all posts from WeBeCrazy.com" (you will see her cute puppy pictures but nothing from that particular website)  Most of my friends use the same couple of sites to support their personal policy agendas and a week or so of blocking posts from their favorite sources does wonders.  I am sure they do the same for the limited amount of political stuff I post on my page.  This is for folks you basically like and want to be in communication with, but want to avoid an overwhelming desire to choke the crap out of them.