or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by purslaine

Do you think MDC should hold members to a standard when linking to sites? (no snark - genuine question).
It's ok that you only like such sites.  You are what you are and I yam what I yam.   I too like CDC, WHO, Univerisites, etc.  I don't dismiss non-vax sites though - sometimes they have some good stuff to say, and sometimes they are a load of tripe.  I have seen some tripe (usually in the form of gross oversimplification of headlines and cherry picking of data) on mainstream sites as well.   The question is  - can people from such divergent backgrounds accomplish anything...
yeah, I agree.   I think a discussion on what makes a good source is a great idea!   I do not think we should take it as far as "this site is allowed and this site isn't."     Perhaps it is acceptable if it is done just on the debate thread for the purpose of moving the conversation forward, but I am not so sure.   edited to add:  I just reread the Op.  The purpose seems to be finding sites both sides think have validity, but does not discuss if we can link to sites that...
    Italics mine.   Mothering is not a science/academic site.  It is a parenting site.       The price of admission to MDC and discussions is not "have you taken classes on bias, logic, rhetoric" etc.  All parents have to make a decision on vaxxing.    Aside from sites, there are members here who put  weight in experience, instincts, and more holistic health care models.  It's a diverse place.   If you want to talk to people who have the exact same standards as you in...
what makes a good site?   Here are a few things to consider:   Bias.  Is it possible to get away from bias?  Should we even want to ?  (we all have a POV, after all)   Conflict of interest - particularly financial.  Is some financial conflict of interest OK?  What kind?   Sites - any site that does not link to its sources is a load of dung in my opinion.     Vileness/nastiness to the other side:  I have seen some pro-vax sites that are fairly snarky...
  I let my youngest put stickers on a window of our car.  My other kids hate it (although they are coming around to my view) but I love it.  In a sea of blue sedans, I can always find our car easily as it is the one with the highly stickered window!
Then do not look at the site.   If I link to age of autism (for example) no one is making you look at the site.     If you cannot have a conversation with me about whatever because you do not like the site, okay-dokey.       This is what I see:   Most non-vaxxers like CDC, WHO, etc Some non-vaxxers also like sites such as NVIC, Smartvax etc.   Most vaxxers only like sites such as CDC.     If we look for common ground, we can only use sites such as CDC.  The CDC has a...
I don't think you should mandate it that people have to see a doctor or other healthcare provider when their child isn't sick.  Maybe they have better things to spend the money on - like food and rent.  I get you think everyone should talk to their doctor about vaccinating - but should and mandated are miles apart.   How healthcare in the USA works is that if you want it, you pay for it.  There are programs for low income families, etc, but that is the bottom line.  I do...
Some people recover from severe vax reactions and some have lasting health effects.   Likewise, some people get over VPDs just fine - and some don't.  (although if you get a vax you open yourself up to a reaction.  Skipping a vax does not mean you will get the VPD - in the vast majority of cases you will not)   Pick your poison.    If you fall into the category of people who have had a bad vaccine reaction, I question whether you and your family should get vaccines.  Some...
  What would be the guidelines?   bias? lack of citations on the page? financial interests? nasty tone about the other camp?   I think we should be allowed to use any site. We are all adults.  If you do not like a a site, do not go look at it.  Complete newbies aside, most of us know which sites are generally acceptable in discussions.
New Posts  All Forums: