should there be a pro-vax forum?

[purslaine]

Poll time.

Do you think there should be a pro-vax forum?  Why or why not?

In the absence of a pro-vax forum, where should posts that are designed as pro-vaxxers "talking amongst ourselves" go?  

TIA!

Kathy

[purslaine]

Can I edit a poll?  No, I cannot.

Ignore the word "no" in the second choice - I created a double negative.

[SweetSilver]

I noticed when a mod pointed out to a pushy pro-vaxxer that she was posting in the "non-vax" forum.  Pro-vaxxers have no such place, all they can say is "this is a pro-vax thread".   Not very fair.  

So, unless the "vaccinations" forum becomes the de facto pro-vax forum, I think they should get their own.  Sel/Del vax is a relatively friendly place, and it's possible that could be a home for solidly pro-vax threads, but would that prevent the kinds of arguments we've seen here?  And would the Selective vaxxers appreciate being lumped with the "pro-vax" camp?

The forums could also be divided in such a way that there could be a place for folks to argue the entire topic without mod interference unless it gets personal.  I think things would get pretty boring if everyone was cordoned off from each other.  I have learned so much paying attention to these debates, and I don't think I would feel the same if their were no place where the two camps could clash.

In any other corner of society, pro-vaxxers would be in the majority and I wouldn't consider the need to give them cover from anti- and non-vax debates.  But here they are not, and the deserve the same "safe spot" that non-vaxxers get.

[Rrrrrachel]

I am on my phone so I can't vote right now, but I dont see the point.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not here to talk to other people who vaccinate and have my decision affirmed. I'm here to discuss things with people I disagree with and have my own beliefs challenged and hopefully do the same for other people. I dont see the point of a discussion forum that's set up to eliminate disagreement and therefore discussion.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not here to talk to other people who vaccinate and have my decision affirmed. I'm here to discuss things with people I disagree with and have my own beliefs challenged and hopefully do the same for other people. I dont see the point of a discussion forum that's set up to eliminate disagreement and therefore discussion.

Have you had your beliefs challenged in any significant way?

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Have you had your beliefs challenged in any significant way?

Wasn't directed at me, but my opinions about how to interact with people with anti-vax beliefs have changed, as has my understanding of why parents would make those choices.

My beliefs about vaccines have not really changed. I've seen nothing convincing on the "vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases" argument. 

[erigeron]

I think that the lack of this forum says something pretty telling about the views of the administrators of MDC. If they actually permit it, I am for it to bring some balance to the boards. I've always thought it was pretty ridiculous that there's a non-vaxxing and a selective/delayed vaxxing, but nothing aimed at people who vax on schedule. Though we skipped Hep B for the time being so technically are sel/del, though I'm very pro-vax.

BTW, the second poll option is perfectly okay, because the first "No" is its own clause and therefore does not cause a double negative. A double negative would be "There should not be no "I'm vaccinating" forum", or some such.

[prosciencemum]

I was in another thread about this where the mod said the pro-vax location was the selective/delayed board (which can include selecting everything, and not delaying). My issue with that has been it seems mostly about how to get a Dr who supports a delayed schedule, and or how to get exemptions because of a selective or delayed schedule. I have little interest in those discussions. 

[SweetSilver]

I did not realize that you were inviting disagreement with the studies you post.  I've had the impression that you are wanting to have your case affirmed.  I was feeling like arguments against your evidence on the threads you start, especially, were a bit invasive, but now I know otherwise.  

I do think there should be a clear demarcation between "support" and "debate", whether it is dividing the forums thus or some other solution.

Edited to add: wow this thread moved pretty fast.  I should have used "quote".  This comment was directed at Rrrrachel

Edited by SweetSilver - 6/7/12 at 10:47am

[laohaire]

I think we should do away with the subforums altogether. Vaccinations, come one, come all. No personal attacks. But debate? Game on.

[purslaine]

Here are the guideline on sel/delayed

 

 

It seems, to me, that MDC is saying "vax friendly" posts belong on sel/delayed and debate belongs on the main vaccination page.  As such I think pro-vax only discussions (which are not debate) belong on sel/delayed at this point in time. 

 

I do understand the limitations of sel/delayed, however.  There is a world of difference between someone who only vaxxes for tetanus, and someone who vaxxes for almost everything and considers themselves pro-vax.

 

It is for this, and many other reasons (mostly listed by SweetSilver) that I think MDC should have a pro-vax forum.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by laohaire 

I think we should do away with the subforums altogether. Vaccinations, come one, come all. No personal attacks. But debate? Game on.

hear hear.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by laohaire 

I think we should do away with the subforums altogether. Vaccinations, come one, come all. No personal attacks. But debate? Game on.

I hope not.  I think a lot of non-vaxxers appreciate the non-vaccination forum.  There are some that post there that never post here. 

Not everyone wants debate - some do want support or information related to their decision.  

Debate is cool, too, hence this forum.  

Edited by purslaine - 6/7/12 at 9:25am

[serenbat]

Should there be a PRO-circ (circumcision) as well?

[Rrrrrachel]

I think the official position is that circumcision is not compatible with mothering's beliefs, so topics that support circumcision are discouraged.  Officially mothering does not support or discourage vaccination.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

Should there be a PRO-circ (circumcision) as well?

Circ and Vax are COMPLETELY different. If you think that vax is similar to circ....I guess I don't know what to tell you.

[laohaire]

I agree that certain threads should be able to be marked support only. But I think they should be the exception, not the rule - that is, marked that way, and if it's not marked that way, then it's open.

If there is a culture of no personal attacks (and moderation to back it up) then this will serve everyone the best. Are we looking for a safe place to just go "yeah that!" or are we looking for the truth?

[purslaine]

*

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Wasn't directed at me, but my opinions about how to interact with people with anti-vax beliefs have changed, as has my understanding of why parents would make those choices.

My beliefs about vaccines have not really changed. I've seen nothing convincing on the "vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases" argument. 

While vaccines were obviously more dangerous for my family than the diseases, that's not actually the point that many of us have been making, over and over, and for you to assume that that is the main argument against the current vaccine schedule is a huge mistake on your part.

The problems with today's vaccine program:

1) the rate of severe vaccine reaction is much higher than what is reported, because the reporting system is grossly inadequate, and because medical personnel are not trained to recognize severe vaccine reactions. If anything, they are trained to misdiagnose severe vaccine reactions as something else entirely.

2) The risk of complications from MANY of the "vaccine-preventable diseases" is much lower than what the medical community is taught. (Flu is a good example here.)

3) (For the sake of argument,  I'm going on the assumption that vaccines do just as much good as you say that they do, though I don't agree.)

The number of people with severe vaccine reactions (using today's vaccine schedule) is unacceptably high.

4) Parents and patients are not told of all the known risks for each vaccines, and are misinformed as to the risks of some of the diseases. Informed consent has been the law, but for decades, it has not happened.  In California, it is now LEGAL to give a 12-year-old child, even a mentally challenged or speech challenged child, hepatitis B and Gardasil without parental knowledge, so those parents would not even know that their child had been given a vaccine that may have been contraindicated.