I am simply pointing out that we don’t know who this group represents, the number of people who belong to it, or where they get their funding. And I am suspicious of a group who uses the name that confuses people in this way.
and no, it is not the same as the American Academy of Pediatrics. That group, albeit being a lefty type organization, does represent most pediatricians, who unlike other docs tend to be lefties.
The only “problem” with the HPV vaccine is that the company spent a lot of money hyping the vaccine before they actually proved it worked as good as they claimed. So Perry could be criticized for being bribed, and for not going through the legislature.
But later studies showed it worked pretty good (not 100 percent) and that later versions of the vaccine would catch the rarer type viruses that caused these cancers.
I mean, anti vaccine hysteria is a form of paranoia, and Michelle Bachman just lost the vote of most of us over her stupidity here.
When patients asked me if I though the vaccine was safe, I would point out that every thing had a small risk, even driving a car to my office. That didn’t mean we should go back to horse and buggies...
Good points, some of them.
I should have noted the name was different, which points to your issue about name similarity.
OTOH, groups often do so, not to confuse outsiders, but to identify with insiders who want a change.
PCUS vs PCA (Presbyterian Church US now USA, vs ... of America)
ACLU vs ACLJ
Generally a reactionary group is smaller, otherwise it would have simply imposed its view upon the other group, or been the dominant group all along.
American Heritage Girls comes to mind. They are smaller, and have a way to go in some scouting areas, but are growing significantly as more and more people find their consciences unable to stay aligned with Girl Scouts USA.
Most of us would argue that size is not a factor in determining whether a group can have credibility. I can understand the notion of medical consensus, versus quackery, but if the dominant group tends to be made of “lefties” one has to ask if consensus is a scientific or cultural criterion. All the arguing about man made global warming is a perfect example, for instance.
I am more concerned with whether the positions of any group pass the tests of reason and conformity to specific revelation (say scripture), regulation (say constitution), or observation (scientific or otherwise) - to the best of my ability to understand these things.
I admit it gets miry in some areas: are certain conditions genetic, environmental, or perhaps the result of specific environmental triggers combined with specific genetic traits? Are our genes fixed, or more elastic - changing over time due to environmental or even behavioral factors.
I could ask similar questions in areas of jurisprudence or doctrine or even of physical sciences, but pick these as they relate perhaps to looking at positions taken by various mainstream psychological, psychiatric, or pediatric organizations - such as this one:
http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayTeen.htm
“Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression.”
note that this time I have the American *Academy* of Pediatrics.
“All the major medical organizations” are subject to infiltration, misdirection, or the entirely human problem of interpreting their observations in a manner consistent with their predetermined or political beliefs, that is to say, of being wrong.
Back to the “hard” sciences: Kepler formed an organization of one, explaining the observed phenomena of the movement of Mars through the understanding of Copernicus. All the major Aristotelian physics organizations (including the Church) were in agreement, but they were still wrong.
Now, regarding the original post - without having extensively looked into the group as I should, and shall, eventually - the position of the ACP on mandating the HPV vaccine seems in accord with reason, and many of the issues raised in their position paper may be found in the New England Journal of Medicine’s pages over a several year period (links in other posts of mine).
While I am glad that longer studies seem to resolve some of the safety concerns raised in the initially quick introduction, I am willing to wait it out for a while, until we have much more information.
Interesting side note - I found a pdf comparing AAP to ACP, which states that a position paper can only be published if 75% of the members agree to the position. With an unknown number of members, but presumably at least 47, that means that at least 36 of them have to concur. Seems like an interesting way of doing things.
Nice talking to you. Sorry I am not a more instant communicator.