Health Quiz

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Poll question: Health Quiz

Do you enjoy participating in the health forum at Democratic Underground?

[gateley]

1. I've never visited - but would like to if I remember.--

Why would someone feel unwelcome? Are you guys mean?

[LaurenG]

2. Lol

I read most of what goes on here, but I rarely post, I'll just say it's an interesting experience.

:hi:

[Celebration]

3. Aw, come on and post

You know, sticks and stones and all that.........................

I have a real interest in health issues, but posting here has the added benefit of making me tough.

There are some other contentious forums and groups--religion comes to mind. I don't have all that much of an interest in that subject, so that definitely posting there is not worth it to me.

[LaurenG]

4. I admire the hell out of you for braving this forum!

Me, I just sit and watch the flames because there is very little that is posted here that doesn't wind up a flaming mess. :7 I work in the medical field and I am also what some term a "woo" so I agree with much on both sides of some arguments. I'll comment now and then though, thanks for the encouragement.

[Celebration]

7. to me, the most amazing, bizarre, worst thread of all time that I got involved in

Here had only a little bit to do with health. There were people here that wanted to censor the internet!! That's right--they wanted to have a government agency have the power to take unapproved health information off the internet. I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone and had emerged in Siberia in the 50s or something. I changed my signature for MONTHS over that one. There are actually a couple of people here who want internet censorship of health information. Boggles the mind, doesn't it? For old times sake I am resurrecting the signature stuff.

[trotsky]

8. Oh fer pete's sake.

You're rehashing that hyperbole again? Way to foster good relations and healthy debate.

Go yell FIRE! in a crowded theater and tell me how absolute freedom of speech is.

People are held responsible for what they say ALL THE TIME. That is all that the folks YOU labeled "censors" want to happen. YOU engaged in the name-calling and strawmen, and it's clear from this post you haven't changed your tactics one bit.

[Celebration]

9. Whatever n/t

[Hannah Bell]

47. discussing the merits of gardasil doesn't rise to the level of yelling

in a crowded theater. the theater is as big as the us, 300 million, & only 2800 deaths/yr supposedly caused by hpv 16 & 18. wa-a-a-y less than driving, a risk most people take every day.

You are one of the worst offenders in the name-calling sweepstakes. Totally unnecessary.

[trotsky]

48. Thanks, but that is irrelevant to the censorship issue.

You are one of the worst offenders in the name-calling sweepstakes. Totally unnecessary.

Sure. If that were true, I'd have lots of posts deleted. Go check some recent threads and tell me who's getting deleted. If you're mad at me personally, take it up in PMs.

[Hannah Bell]

50. i'm not "mad". i'm just saying, lots of your posts are name-calling.

it's not necessary.

[trotsky]

52. If that's the case, alert and they'll be deleted.

If you're just making baseless accusations to impugn my character, well that's rather pathetic.

I invite you to go check some recent threads and find out for yourself who's been getting deleted.

[Hannah Bell]

55. They don't delete when folks call certain names - like "anti-vaxer"

or "anti-science". But it's still name-calling.

I don't feel the need to alert for names; but they make real discussion on the merits very difficult.

[trotsky]

60. If they aren't deleted, they aren't name-calling.

The rules are pretty simple. So stop with your petty name-calling of calling me a name-caller. That's a name, you know.

[Hannah Bell]

61. um, looking at these threads tells me otherwise.

[trotsky]

63. Um, OK.

I guess you get to paint your own reality.

But if nothing else, just cast your eyes down a few posts in THIS thread.

[LeftishBrit]

62. 'Anti-vaxer' isn't a rude name. There are people who call themselves 'anti-vaxers'

Certainly it is a good idea to distinguish between those who are suspicious of all vaccines, and those who are only suspicious of Gardasil.

'Anti-science' is another matter - BUT people who are pro-vaccines or specifically pro-Gardasil are quite often labelled as 'pro-Pharma' which is at least as insulting - and sometimes even worse, as 'shills' and the like.

[varkam]

64. I wonder who else is name-calling in this forum?

Oh nevermind, I'm sure it's just us mean old Merckenaries / Pharmhands.

[cosmik debris]

65. Let's don't forget "fucktard"

That seems to be one of the new favorites.

It has been used on me twice because I don't buy into the "sky is falling because of Gardasil" propaganda.

But that's what I expect from the shills for Big Woo! :)

[salvorhardin]

66. You know who name-calls?

THE GARDASIL NAME-CALLS!

[cosmik debris]

67. That's an adverse reaction

Let's report it to VAERS!

CALL VAERS NOW!!!11!!!

[varkam]

10. Are you likewise offended that the FTC prohibits false advertising?

Censoring jerks.

[Celebration]

13. nah

I think what we are talking about here is some sort of board that could take things off the internet that did not meet with the approval of the members of the proposed board. False advertising is completely different from that. "Free speech" is a term that encompasses the freedom of expression of OPINIONS, and has nothing to do with allowing slander, fraud, etc. So--opinions and ideas would be allowed.

[varkam]

15. Board? What?

Who said anything about a board?

[Celebration]

17. I promise that was somewhere in those old threads

When I asked how the censorship would work--things would be decided on a case by case basis by an appointed board of some sort. I never was able to flesh out any more details than that.

[cosmik debris]

19. As I recall,

Someone said, in the manner of hyperbole, that it should be illegal to post such terrible medical information on a public message board. And as usual, it got blown completely out of proportion.

[Celebration]

22. At first I thought it *must* be hyperbole

When I figured out that it was not was when I changed my signature line--

[trotsky]

16. Consider this.

If you have an opinion that the president should be assassinated, and you broadcast that opinion on the Internet, complete with details on how you think you could do it, do you think your free speech rights will keep you from being detained and possibly convicted?

[Celebration]

18. no, that is inciting violence n/t

[trotsky]

20. So you ADMIT there are restrictions on "free speech"?

Advocating harm, for instance, is such a limit?

[Celebration]

21. That has been settled law for a very long time

There is no controversy about the example you gave.

I believe that the issue there was whether to restrict the ability of people to say things like "Vaccines cause autism" on the internet.

The great thing about free speech is that it does actually protect speech that a lot of people think is dangerous. Free speech that only allows things like "I love my mom" or "vaccines are like apple pie" isn't really free, is it? The may be nice thoughts, but rather like mushy pablum--without the turmeric.

[trotsky]

23. I'm glad you can admit there are limits to free speech.

In particular when what they say can be harmful to others. So there's no disagreement after all. You're a CENSOR too.

[Celebration]

25. the COURTS do it

Not a board of censors, and certainly not me.

[trotsky]

28. You're as much of a censor as you accuse your opponents of, then.

Funny how that works.

[Celebration]

29. as long as we all agree

that people can say "vaccines cause autism" and other "dangerous" ideas all over the internet, and without a board censoring on a case by case basis, then fine.

Courts have always had jurisdiction on things like fraud and slander. Yawn. Nothing new about that. ACLU would agree as well.

[trotsky]

35. CENSOR!!!! n/t

[Celebration]

36. WHATEVER n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. that explains alot

now I get it.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Other

I enjoy getting info, and reading and sometimes participating in debates. But I don't like the readiness by some posters to suspect opponents of mercenary motives.

[Celebration]

12. for the record

I don't think anyone here is paid to post. Everyone here is expressing their heartfelt opinions. Some do work in the pharmaceutical industry and that may or may not color their viewpoints. But that is an entirely separate issue.

I have been accused of being paid to post, too. Go figure!

[LeftishBrit]

33. I was not really referring to the accusations of being paid to post...

Those are so ridiculous that I can keep my sense of humour about those. If people could get paid just for posting on message-boards, the problem of earning a living would suddenly become much easier for many of us!

I was referring to the assumption made by some people that pro-Gardasil/ pro-vaccination-in-general/ pro-Western-medicine-in-general must be 'Big Pharmhands', 'Big Pharma shills', or 'what is your financial interest'? Since for some of us, our interest is through being *patients* or *relatives of patients*, such accusations are *truly* below the belt, and extremely hurtful.

So far as I know, Rush Limbaugh and other religious right-wingers did not actually accuse Michael J. Fox and other Parkinsons sufferers of being paid to endorse stem cell research, but he certainly implied that they were bad people to want it, and that the anti-stem-cell cause trumped their health needs. I think the 'Pharmhand' accusations are a low blow in just the same sort of way.

Accusations of being fools, gullible, ignorant, fundies, etc. seem to be made equally on both sides of the debate; but none of these is nearly as bad as the imputation of mercenary motives for what for many of us are concerns due to our own or family members' health needs (that is after all what attracts many people to a health forum).

Frankly, if anything I may have a slight financial motivation for being particularly *resentful* of Big Pharma, since my research area is ineligible for funding by pharmaceutical companies, while that of some people in adjacent departments is eligible - so they get grants that I can't; cue the green-eyed monster!

In any case, I think that attacking people on their real or imagined real-life situations, rather than sticking to attacking their *views* is going beyond the bounds of acceptable debate.

[Celebration]

40. people's attitudes here are often

Much more nuanced than they seem. At least I hope so. I have to admit I don't trust drugs or drug companies very much, and that opinion has come about partially due to experiences my family has had with various drugs. But obviously pharmaceuticals are often lifesaving and I certainly wouldn't hesitate to take them if I felt I really needed them. In general there are way too many people on way too many drugs--particularly the elderly. I feel that they are victimized, and sometimes busy doctors prescribe things in nursing homes to keep people "comfortable" (easily managed by the staff). I've heard of a lot of cases where people come out of dementia as soon as the various combination of medications is stopped. Health care is hugely expensive in this country, and this is a large part of the problem. That is my particular bias.

I don't think anyone here is a bad person. Now, there are a few that are a little overwrought, but I won't ever name names.

It is best to just stick to the issues, not personalize *any* posts, and don't respond in kind if attacked. That is key, and sorta hard to stick to sometimes. But it would be a much better forum without personal attacks or even responses to personal attacks.

[Hannah Bell]

6. i enjoy debate - but without the knee-jerk ad hom.

it's unnecessary.

[varkam]

11. I agree. eom

[cosmik debris]

14. The anti-science, anti-intellectualism, anti-progress crowd makes it hard

To really enjoy this forum.

But they have the right to post too.

So, Let the games begin!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. the labeling and name calling makes it hard to post here

but perhaps that is the goal.

[LeftishBrit]

34. You mean like being called 'shill' and 'Pharmhand'?

Yes, I tend to agree.

[flyingobject]

38. Like being called ANY names. Or attacking the poster or disrupting threads

any of those things.

You can address that with those who accuse you.

I haven't seen any intervention to stop it.

[LeftishBrit]

42. I think that there's a big difference between having one's views, or even one's intelligence,

attacked in general terms, and being subjected to accusations about one's real-life motivations. I HAVE addressed the issue with those who accuse pro-vaccination people of being 'pharma shills' and the like; but I don't think we should have to.

My objection is not just to such accusations in this one context. I strongly objected to someone on another board who kept accusing political opponents on the board (she was a right-winger) of posting during work hours and 'do your bosses approve?' especially if she thought someone was working for the federal government in any way. I eventually left the board partly as a result of that - even though, as a non-American, I did not come in for these attacks myself. As far as I'm concerned: you can attack my views as much as you like; you can even call me names if you must; but do NOT bring accusations relating to my real or imagined real-life situation into the argument.

I do agree that all name-calling is bad.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

46. "anti science" or "right wing" posted often to try to harass people away from this forum

see how many times you see "anti scientific" posted in Health and get an idea of what is goin on here.

If people don't like a thread, they don't have to seek to start a flame war.

I don't bother the pro vaccine people's threads.

The people doing the flaming and attacking here don't post many threads of their own,
they seem to solely aim to try to disrupt other people's threads.

I've done 4 years of voting activism and gotten a law passed in my state,
I did a news thread in the GDP every day for Obama beginning when the primary was down to two candidates.

I got a law passed to eliminate the "no match no vote" rule in my state, I am hardly a right winger.

And I believe that if someone accuses me of being anti science or right wing, or conservative because I am skeptical of Merck and Gardasil, that they are just gigantic fucktard idiots.

[LeftishBrit]

53. I have never called anyone here right-wing or conservative or even anti-science...

And I wouldn't particularly like to be called these things myself (I have myself been accused of supporting the Iraq war, which I opposed from day one, just because I didn't think Israel caused it, so I understand your frustration on such matters).

However, there is a BIG difference between being called right-wing or anti-science, or (to give an example from the other side) uncritically accepting of government propaganda, and being called mercenary in ones motives. The latter is *an accusation levelled at one's real-life actions and motivations*; the former are attacks, perhaps often unjustified, on one's views. A huge difference IMO.

[cosmik debris]

37. Ha! You knew who I was talking about didn't you.

"Truth will out."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. Sick. You might as well call people "un-patriotic", I hear that has worked well in US for years

I would say that you are "anti truth" if you feel the need to attack people personally
when you are unable to debate the facts.

[LeftishBrit]

43. So I assume that you also object to all the truly VILE accusations of pro-vaccination people being

'shills' and 'Pharmhands'?

[Celebration]

45. I would if I saw it but generally don't get THAT deep into the threads

I am pretty much aware of all the major issues around Gardasil. Unless there is some new information (and occasionally there is), I tend to skip over them.

[cosmik debris]

51. You wear your guilty conscience like a crown of thorns. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

56. more personal attacks? no facts from you, just childish chanting

funny thing, that is that a you feel you have the right to attack women
for not wanting to have a dangerous vaccine foisted upon her daughters.

[cosmik debris]

57. Facts From the New England Journal Of Medicine.

Within both trials, subgroups of subjects with no evidence of previous exposure to relevant vaccine HPV types were evaluated separately for vaccine efficacy. In these subgroups, efficacy of nearly 100% against all grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma in situ related to vaccine HPV types was reported in both trials.

Did you get that? Nearly 100% efficacy.

...the vaccine has high efficacy against certain HPV types that cause life-threatening disease, and it appears to be safe; delaying vaccination may mean that many women will miss an opportunity for long-lasting protection.

Now I know you are smarter than those doofuses at NEJM, and I know that they are under the thumb of Merck, and I know that you won't believe anything that disagrees with your original position, but that's pretty convincing to me. A lot more convincing than the crap you have posted.

Can you show that the NEJM is wrong. (Facts please.)

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

59. You cited that article. That's how I found it.

Now you tell me that your own references are inadequate?

You must be losing it.

[gateley]

24. Okaaaaay. From the posts here I think I'm getting a sense of

what goes on. Have at it! :hi:

[Celebration]

26. Join in!! n/t

[gateley]

27. ....

:scared:

Seriously, I'm not interested in debating or convincing others that my viewpoint is right. I'm only interested in learning of new developments, research, etc., and for that I can get my info from the tubes or read a book. But more power to y'all!

[Celebration]

32. there is actually a LOT of good information here

And I post all of it! Haha, not quite. You can read the titles of the threads to see if it is worth reading. You don't have to post. Don't bother looking at anything with Gardacil, vaccine, homeopathy or autism in the heading, and don't open threads with more than twenty five responses.

But, I just looked and there are some interesting things here, even recently. There are some threads that you might want to look at, but not read all the way to the bottom, because some people seem to want to turn non vaccine threads into vaccine threads. Can't get enough of it I guess.

Here are some recent threads

Turmeric Health Benefits are Many
One Third of Uninsured are Chronically Ill
Treatment of Type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.................. (read first few posts)
Annals of Internal Medicine.........Vioxx...............(read first two posts--this story was actually on the greatest page in LBN a few days later)
More evidence of a failed, lying FDA
Respite for those who take care of someone with Alzheimer's
Can Anyone Help me with Questions about Nuva Ring contraceptives?
Hydrogels provide scaffolding for growth of bone gels
An abundance of Vitamin C in the diet may help lower..........risk of type 2 diabetes
Moisturizers Up Skin Cancer in Mice
Scientists Discover Major Cause of Colorectal Cancer
Antibodies Still protect 1918 Flu Survivors
Vitamin D's Wild Days........................(first few posts only)
Raffle to Support American Cancer Society
If you were given anti nausea drug, Phenergan
Poll on Testing/Taking Vitamin D
Kudos to NEJM Editors........................
Amerigroup Rejects Pregnant Women...............
Being skinny is no Guarantee of a Healthy Heart
Prevention of vascular disease by broccoli
Cancer and the Uninsured
Halving Your Risk of Macular Generation (Wet)
Infant Transplant Procedure Incites Debate

Since I made the trouble to make this list, I am going to be very self serving here and point you to my personal favorite OP. I have NO IDEA why this didn't get more attention than it did. Anyone who likes cool new things should love this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x40691

The kinesio tape on the Olympic Volleyball players.

By the way, I am sure I left out some great threads in here. This is just a sampling.

Happy reading!!

[gateley]

39. I only had to see the Turmeric listed first, and I'm in. I've heard

wonderful reports of its benefits. So I'll head on over. But FIRST, I'll check out your thread! :7

[LeftishBrit]

44. Actually you're right and I have just kicked a few of the threads !

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Yes, as long as I make liberal use of the "hide thread" feature.

[AllieB]

54. Yes, and I generally don't get into it with people.

I find a lot of the information useful here, but with most health boards, you have to take certain studies with a grain of salt, as well as certain natural/homeopathic remedies.