Another SIDS death "not" attributed to vaccines - Page 3

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Marnica

This is how it SHOULD be, but not how it is. There is WAY too much politics involved. Any scientist/doctor that does not want to ruin their reputation, possibly change the course of their career forever, or have their funding dry up will NOT ask these these questions publicly about vaccines and any possible link with any adverse event (especially in relations to SIDS, Autism, SBS, autoimmune disorders, Diabetes etcc). Bernice Eddy discovered this in the 1950's when she discovered SV40 was causing cancer. It is still going on today and I believe is even worse. It's criminal IMO

I agree. There is a huge gap between the ideal of the scientific method and the practice when it comes to the issues surrounding vaccination. And for the reasons you mention.

I just find it hard to understand the litmus test of whether you are a rational, sane person being whether you support the CDC vaccine schedule or not.

And I have read enough to know I should not be surprised when yet again people who are scientists and who value the scientific method are so selective in their scrutiny.

As an aside, I am really enjoying reading up about the philosophy and history of science and the scientific method.

With regard to your OP. There is no integrity to the claim that vaccines don't cause SIDS (in at least some cases), but we don't know what does.

[Lisa1970]

Have you heard of Sudden Unexplained Child Death? A big portion of those were within a short period of shots too. 

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by ema-adama 

 

I agree. There is a huge gap between the ideal of the scientific method and the practice when it comes to the issues surrounding vaccination. And for the reasons you mention.

I just find it hard to understand the litmus test of whether you are a rational, sane person being whether you support the CDC vaccine schedule or not.

And I have read enough to know I should not be surprised when yet again people who are scientists and who value the scientific method are so selective in their scrutiny.

As an aside, I am really enjoying reading up about the philosophy and history of science and the scientific method.

With regard to your OP. There is no integrity to the claim that vaccines don't cause SIDS (in at least some cases), but we don't know what does.

megan!

i was just going to suggest that you read something in one of these areas. a book i'm reading right now is called "Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic".

the idea is that no one actually "does" the scientific method when doing science. results are presented that way because to do otherwise would be confusing and include the many false starts and side trips that real science takes. this doesn't discount the results of a scientific endeavour, it just makes it more human of an enterprise.

i think that the ideal of the scientific method is something that i was taught in grade school, so when i found out that it wasn't actually this way when working on research it came to be a little disillusioning. part of what i'm studying right now is how much more effectively students can understand the results of science if they have an idea about the nature of how science is done. it's really fascinating.