Habe mich mal hingesetzt und beide Artikel verglichen:
Im ursprünglichen Artikel wird vor allem auf die Risiken hingewiesen und viele Ärzte zitiert.
Auch ist hier Dr. Harper noch "
principal investigator of clinical HPV vaccine trials for both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline", im zweiten Artikel ist sie nur noch "
involved in clinical trials with both HPV vaccines" (will man hier bewusst die Glaubhaftigkeit anzweifeln?)
Zitate wie:
"The side effects that have been reported are real and they cannot be brushed aside",
"Physicians have a responsibility to communicate risks to patients and if patients and families are concerned, it is reasonable to hold off on vaccinating," oder
" The cause of recent complications remains a mystery and it is difficult to know whether they are linked to vaccines. "Nobody knows why we are seeing adverse events,"
oder "She went from being a healthy, active teen running, playing lacrosse, and participating on swim team to becoming a chronically ill patient," oder
"I worry about the kids who may be having problems, are perhaps struggling with immune damage, and are feeling generally achy and unwell, but are probably going unreported and undiagnosed," oder
"Cervical cancer is not a vaccine-preventable disease,"
findet man nicht mehr im neuen Artikel(
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/578110),
stattdessen wird die FDA,
CDC und andere bemüht mit:
"Based on ongoing assessments of vaccine safety information, the FDA and
CDC continue to find that Gardasil is a safe and effective vaccine," the agencies said in a statement released on July 22, 2008. "The benefits continue to outweigh the risks," they said. "This vaccine is an important cervical cancer prevention tool," they added.
The manufacturer also issued a statement, dated July 10, 2008, saying it too had analyzed available data and it "believes that no safety issue related to the vaccine has been identified
"There is a great deal of hype, lack of understanding, fear-mongering, and totally unrelated agendas surrounding this issue. It is distressing that these reports have absolutely nothing to do with objective science, and objective science is the process through which we should and must make our decisions related to the public welfare," said Maurie Markman, MD, professor of gynecologic medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, who acts as an advisor to Medscape Oncology.
"The data are overwhelmingly positive that this is an extremely safe and extremely effective vaccine,"
dazu kommt, dass man die kritischen Stimmen der Ärzte mit den kritischen Stimmen von "Anti-Impf-Organisationen"(wie dem National Vaccine Information Center)ersetzt hat, da diese anscheienend nicht glaubwürdig sind.
Jeder sollte einmal beide Artikel lesen, um zu sehen, wie unerwünschte Informationen und Daten in positive Informationen umgewandelt werden.
Frage mich, wer hier bei Medscape angerufen hat und diesen die Hölle heissgemacht hat?
Peter
Home 
