Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Does Mothering Endorse HIV/AIDS denialism
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Does Mothering Endorse HIV/AIDS denialism - Page 3

post #41 of 120
7/5/12 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not think Peggy has to answer.  She is hardly on trial here.  We know there were a series of articles written on aspects of mothering and HIV/AIDS.  I remember reading one or two and thought they were fascinating reads.  She is listed as a board member at Alive and Well.  If these are things you cannot live with, then perhaps you need to decide if MDC is the right place for you.  

Edited to add:  my above post was not directed at anyone who just discovered MDC's history of questioning mainstream HIV/AIDS. I would understand their demanding answers.  

Im not asking for Peggy's personal view but I am genuinely interested to know if Mothering has an official position, as they do on CIO or physical discipline for example.
Sponsored Links
post #42 of 120
7/6/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

What is going on here? Why can no one get an answer for this simple question?


That is a really good question. If Mothering's official stance is contrary to the accepted scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS, they owe it to the online community to make that clear. If their stance has changed over time, they should make that clear as well.

 

Be brave and state openly what you believe in, so that people can make informed decisions about whether they wish to participate in this community.

post #43 of 120
7/6/12 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not think Peggy has to answer.  She is hardly on trial here.  We know there were a series of articles written on aspects of mothering and HIV/AIDS.  I remember reading one or two and thought they were fascinating reads.  She is listed as a board member at Alive and Well.  If these are things you cannot live with, then perhaps you need to decide if MDC is the right place for you.  

Edited to add:  my above post was not directed at anyone who just discovered MDC's history of questioning mainstream HIV/AIDS. I would understand their demanding answers.  

I think she opened herself up to this by choosing to participate in this thread and asking a very leading question. Members opened up about their personal experience with HIV/ AIDS at her request, and she has not come back to respond. Makes me feel like she was asking a leading question just to get clicks.
post #44 of 120
7/6/12 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not think Peggy has to answer.  She is hardly on trial here.  We know there were a series of articles written on aspects of mothering and HIV/AIDS.  I remember reading one or two and thought they were fascinating reads.  She is listed as a board member at Alive and Well.  If these are things you cannot live with, then perhaps you need to decide if MDC is the right place for you.  

 

Edited to add:  my above post was not directed at anyone who just discovered MDC's history of questioning mainstream HIV/AIDS. I would understand their demanding answers.  

Thank you, Kathy.

 

I do feel that you are putting me on trial here for publishing controversial articles. Yes, I am still listed as a board member of Alive and Well. This is because I was originally a board member for Moms Against Mandatory Medication, which was later folded into Alive and Well. I support parents having informed consent about ALL issues. I do not nor does Mothering have a formal position on AIDS or HIV, any more than we have an official position on birth, vaccinations or any other subject. Our position is one of informed consent on all issues. Parents deserve ALL information on which to make decisions and I support parents in making their own choices. 

 

I asked if people had personal experience with themselves testing HIV and having to decide about medications and breastfeeding because I am sympathetic to that mother and I have published her stories. It seems that many of you are not sympathetic to her and only consider one position as valid. Nonetheless, our publishing of the experiences of HIV positive mothers who are conflicted about medication and want to breastfeed did, in fact, help to influence international breastfeeding research and policy. I am proud of that and proud that our articles acknowledge the dilemma of HIV positive mothers.

 

How many of you have read the articles that we published?

 

I have not been inclined to post in this hostile environment in which my veracity itself is questioned and also because I have previously addressed this issue on MDC on numerous occasions. Many of you obviously have an agenda and are not sincerely interested in hearing my position, but only in refuting what you imagine it to be.

 

I feel sorry for new members who have to navigate this kind of negativity and lack of civility.

post #45 of 120
7/6/12 at 5:27pm
If you don't support the mission of Alive and Well, you really should ask that your name be removed as a board member. Otherwise, people will continue to assume that you endorse it.
post #46 of 120
7/6/12 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy O'Mara View Post

Thank you, Kathy.

I do feel that you are putting me on trial here for publishing controversial articles. Yes, I am still listed as a board member of Alive and Well. This is because I was originally a board member for Moms Against Mandatory Medication, which was later folded into Alive and Well. I support parents having informed consent about ALL issues. I do not nor does Mothering have a formal position on AIDS or HIV, any more than we have an official position on birth, vaccinations or any other subject. Our position is one of informed consent on all issues. Parents deserve ALL information on which to make decisions and I support parents in making their own choices. 

I asked if people had personal experience with themselves testing HIV and having to decide about medications and breastfeeding because I am sympathetic to that mother and I have published her stories. It seems that many of you are not sympathetic to her and only consider one position as valid. Nonetheless, our publishing of the experiences of HIV positive mothers who are conflicted about medication and want to breastfeed did, in fact, help to influence international breastfeeding research and policy. I am proud of that and proud that our articles acknowledge the dilemma of HIV positive mothers.

How many of you have read the articles that we published?

I have not been inclined to post in this hostile environment in which my veracity itself is questioned and also because I have previously addressed this issue on MDC on numerous occasions. Many of you obviously have an agenda and are not sincerely interested in hearing my position, but only in refuting what you imagine it to be.

I feel sorry for new members who have to navigate this kind of negativity and lack of civility.

Except for circumcision, gentle discipline, and gentle sleep methods. Am I correct in thinking that those are formal positions?

Thanks for coming back and posting Peggy. I don't see how this environment is hostile any more than any other thread where someone asks a question and then doesnt come back to answer it. I think people do want an answer to this issue, and it seems like people have been asking for a while now. I've read the articles, and I see what you are saying, but I also see how it can come off as offensive. I understand that HIV positive mothers have a dilemma, and I do think it is important to hear more than one opinion, although I disagree with not medicating. Avoiding users requests for an explanation seems like it was way worse than the explanation itself. I don't see why this wasn't posted months ago.

To the PP who said that we all deserve an answer so that we can make a decision about whether or not to be a part of this community: Even if Peggy said that she does have a formal position on HIV/AIDS, I don't see why that would mean that someone shouldn't be apart of this community. The person who founded/ admins (and I suppose, earns money from) MDC is not the entire community. I wouldn't make a decision based on what Peggy thinks (no offense) anymore than I'd make the decision not to be a part of this community because there are a few people who are pro-circ, spank their kids regularly, or are pro-life (all of which are present in this community). The online community is only what we make it, and if everyone cool leaves just because they disagree with something, then what's left for the people who stay. (Ha, Ive been asking myself this a lot lately).
Edited by Adaline'sMama - 7/6/12 at 6:50pm
post #47 of 120
7/6/12 at 6:02pm
I'm sorry you felt attacked Peggy. That wasnt my intention and I apologize if my posts to this thread came across that way.

I haven't read the articles because, as I mentioned, I couldn't find them online. If anyone has links they could post I'd appreciate it.

I do wonder it we're talking about two different issues here though I as see quite a difference between questioning the need for a particular medication and questioning the existence of a disease. I don't know that many people on MDC would argue with the need for pregnant and breast feeding women to be cautious about taking drugs for any reason. I suspect fewer would agree with the idea that HIV/AIDS as a disease process is a myth.

On the subject of breast feeding policy, WHO still does not recommend breast feeding for women in what it calls wealthy countries who have reliable access to formula and clean water. The newest guidelines recommend BF for women who don't have access to safe formula. They now advise rapid weaning at 6 months only if women do not have access to antiretrovirals and the means and motivation to adhere strictly to the regime. For women who can adhere to antiretroviral treatment the advice is to continue BF until 12 months, introducing solids and formula after 6.
post #48 of 120
7/6/12 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy O'Mara View Post

Thank you, Kathy.

 

I do feel that you are putting me on trial here for publishing controversial articles. Yes, I am still listed as a board member of Alive and Well. This is because I was originally a board member for Moms Against Mandatory Medication, which was later folded into Alive and Well. I support parents having informed consent about ALL issues. I do not nor does Mothering have a formal position on AIDS or HIV, any more than we have an official position on birth, vaccinations or any other subject. Our position is one of informed consent on all issues. Parents deserve ALL information on which to make decisions and I support parents in making their own choices. 

 

I asked if people had personal experience with themselves testing HIV and having to decide about medications and breastfeeding because I am sympathetic to that mother and I have published her stories. It seems that many of you are not sympathetic to her and only consider one position as valid. Nonetheless, our publishing of the experiences of HIV positive mothers who are conflicted about medication and want to breastfeed did, in fact, help to influence international breastfeeding research and policy. I am proud of that and proud that our articles acknowledge the dilemma of HIV positive mothers.

 

How many of you have read the articles that we published?

 

I have not been inclined to post in this hostile environment in which my veracity itself is questioned and also because I have previously addressed this issue on MDC on numerous occasions. Many of you obviously have an agenda and are not sincerely interested in hearing my position, but only in refuting what you imagine it to be.

 

I feel sorry for new members who have to navigate this kind of negativity and lack of civility.

I have been lurking on this thread with great interest, and I am so disappointed in this response. Peggy, I do not read where anyone was personally attacking you or the veracity of anything you have said (with the exception of the one post about asking questions to increase "clicks: which I don't think deserves a response.) I think this has been a civil discussion, but I think posters feel dissatisfied with your lack of response after entering the conversation. And now it seems like you are withdrawing rather than showing a willingness to publicly wrestle with what is clearly a painful subject. I feel compassion for the mother who was the subject of those stories. That cover story was the first issue of the magazine I ever purchased. I was very distressed by the story, but did appreciate the piece, because it was an issue that was not getting coverage anywhere else.  In retrospect, I think her story is a tragedy. But there is a difference between journalism and advocacy. I do not question telling her story, but the question being asked today, is what has been learned from that story. MDC does not exist in a vacuum and absolutely takes formal positions. We cannot advocate spanking, CIO or RIC here. Please don't hide behind the banner of "Informed Consent." That is clearly an oversimplification of this discussion. 

 

As MDC has aged (and I've been a member for 10 years so I feel qualified to say this), one of the best changes has been the community's ability to get beyond the dogma of natural family living/AP and to be able to really get to the meat of the complex conversations we share . Part of engaging as a member of a community is a willingness to be challenged. Please assume that the challenge comes from a place of mutual respect and a yearning to understand the wealth of experiences that exist on these boards.

post #49 of 120
7/6/12 at 6:07pm

Well said, Adaline'sMama. Also there is a huge difference between supporting an HIV+ mother's personal choices re: ATV drugs and/or breastfeeding and denying that HIV leads to AIDS without treatment.

 

I don't want to steer this thread off-course, but I feel like I have to say something-- sorry!-- from my experience the split of pro-choice/pro-life mamas on MDC is pretty 50/50. And I think it's a little offensive to group pro-choicers into the same group as those who spank their kids. Definitely not trying to start a debate, just wanted to say that redface.gif.

post #50 of 120
7/6/12 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveandgarbage View Post

Well said, Adaline'sMama. Also there is a huge difference between supporting an HIV+ mother's personal choices re: ATV drugs and/or breastfeeding and denying that HIV leads to AIDS without treatment.

I don't want to steer this thread off-course, but I feel like I have to say something-- sorry!-- from my experience the split of pro-choice/pro-life mamas on MDC is pretty 50/50. And I think it's a little offensive to group pro-choicers into the same group as those who spank their kids. Definitely not trying to start a debate, just wanted to say that redface.gif .

We won't let this get off topic. My comment was to make the point that just because I personally disagree with some of the community about things, doesn't mean that I would leave the community. I am pro-choice to the max. That was a typo smile.gif Ill fix it.
post #51 of 120
7/6/12 at 6:53pm

Cool thumb.gif

post #52 of 120
7/6/12 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post

I'm sorry you felt attacked Peggy. That wasnt my intention and I apologize if my posts to this thread came across that way.
I haven't read the articles because, as I mentioned, I couldn't find them online. If anyone has links they could post I'd appreciate it.
I do wonder it we're talking about two different issues here though I as see quite a difference between questioning the need for a particular medication and questioning the existence of a disease. I don't know that many people on MDC would argue with the need for pregnant and breast feeding women to be cautious about taking drugs for any reason. I suspect fewer would agree with the idea that HIV/AIDS as a disease process is a myth.
On the subject of breast feeding policy, WHO still does not recommend breast feeding for women in what it calls wealthy countries who have reliable access to formula and clean water. The newest guidelines recommend BF for women who don't have access to safe formula. They now advise rapid weaning at 6 months only if women do not have access to antiretrovirals and the means and motivation to adhere strictly to the regime. For women who can adhere to antiretroviral treatment the advice is to continue BF until 12 months, introducing solids and formula after 6.

I have been lurking this thread too. I am curious as to the official stance as well. I am a new member trying to decide if this is a good place for me. I have a friend who is HIV+ and has a daughter. I know how she feels about it and I know how I feel about it. I have seen so much on this site how stances are taken with no give. I am curious why this issue is not being answered. I could understand the response.

 

"We are not taking a stance on this issue due to a lack of confirmed scientific reasearch." or something like that. (True or not)

 

But I would like to hear an answer.

post #53 of 120
7/6/12 at 8:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post



To the PP who said that we all deserve an answer so that we can make a decision about whether or not to be a part of this community: Even if Peggy said that she does have a formal position on HIV/AIDS, I don't see why that would mean that someone shouldn't be apart of this community. The person who founded/ admins (and I suppose, earns money from) MDC is not the entire community. I wouldn't make a decision based on what Peggy thinks (no offense) anymore than I'd make the decision not to be a part of this community because there are a few people who are pro-circ, spank their kids regularly, or are pro-life (all of which are present in this community). The online community is only what we make it, and if everyone cool leaves just because they disagree with something, then what's left for the people who stay. (Ha, Ive been asking myself this a lot lately).

 

I don't think that everyone should necessarily make a decision about this community based on any particular stance of MDC...but for me (and for many people), the idea of participating in a forum where the official position is that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that pregnant moms should NOT take antiretroviral medications, and that moms with HIV should breastfeed NO MATTER WHAT, even if they have access to clean water and ample formula, is unsavory. I am okay with disagreeing with MDC on lots of things. An HIV denialist position has enormous, non-theoretical potential to actively cause harm to women and children, and I am not okay with that. So my reason for really wanting to know the answers to these questions is that I do not want to give MDC my page views and clicks, and fill the coffers, if I feel that MDC as an organization is causing harm to women and children.  I already have issues with the largely negative view of vaccines espoused here. HIV denialism is too much for me.

post #54 of 120
7/6/12 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoraFlood View Post

I don't think that everyone should necessarily make a decision about this community based on any particular stance of MDC...but for me (and for many people), the idea of participating in a forum where the official position is that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that pregnant moms should NOT take antiretroviral medications, and that moms with HIV should breastfeed NO MATTER WHAT, even if they have access to clean water and ample formula, is unsavory. I am okay with disagreeing with MDC on lots of things. An HIV denialist position has enormous, non-theoretical potential to actively cause harm to women and children, and I am not okay with that. So my reason for really wanting to know the answers to these questions is that I do not want to give MDC my page views and clicks, and fill the coffers, if I feel that MDC as an organization is causing harm to women and children.  I already have issues with the largely negative view of vaccines espoused here. HIV denialism is too much for me.

100% agree!
post #55 of 120
7/6/12 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peggy O'Mara View Post

Thank you, Kathy.

 

I do feel that you are putting me on trial here for publishing controversial articles. Yes, I am still listed as a board member of Alive and Well. This is because I was originally a board member for Moms Against Mandatory Medication, which was later folded into Alive and Well. I support parents having informed consent about ALL issues. I do not nor does Mothering have a formal position on AIDS or HIV, any more than we have an official position on birth, vaccinations or any other subject. Our position is one of informed consent on all issues. Parents deserve ALL information on which to make decisions and I support parents in making their own choices. 

 

I asked if people had personal experience with themselves testing HIV and having to decide about medications and breastfeeding because I am sympathetic to that mother and I have published her stories. It seems that many of you are not sympathetic to her and only consider one position as valid. Nonetheless, our publishing of the experiences of HIV positive mothers who are conflicted about medication and want to breastfeed did, in fact, help to influence international breastfeeding research and policy. I am proud of that and proud that our articles acknowledge the dilemma of HIV positive mothers.

 

How many of you have read the articles that we published?

 

I have not been inclined to post in this hostile environment in which my veracity itself is questioned and also because I have previously addressed this issue on MDC on numerous occasions. Many of you obviously have an agenda and are not sincerely interested in hearing my position, but only in refuting what you imagine it to be.

 

I feel sorry for new members who have to navigate this kind of negativity and lack of civility.

 

As a board member, are you not obligated to participate in annual/other meetings?  Is the board not elected by the members on an annual basis?  If you don't agree with the position of the organization, why are you still on the board?  Resigning is as simple as a one line letter.

 

I don't think this thread has been hostile.  I've been following it and I think that valid questions have been asked, and that members deserve honest answers.  I don't think that is hostile.  I also don't get the sense (after having read the whole thread) that people are questioning the responses they've received because they have a particular "agenda".  Rather, I think that members want answers and honest dialogue.

post #56 of 120
7/7/12 at 1:50am
I disagre with the comments that this has not been hostile. There has clearly been a common expected response of what is "rational". If you are not 100% ok with an alternative view, then admit you are judging those who are responding differently. I am thankful I never had to face that issue and make that decision! I, therefore, refuse to judge those who have.
post #57 of 120
7/7/12 at 6:00am
nm
post #58 of 120
7/7/12 at 6:12am

I too believe mothers have the right to all information concerning AIDS. By that I mean valid information. Factual. Science and evidence based. Not false information that has been fully discredited. Not false information that has resulted in preventable death. I am floored that people are still clinging to quack theories because it's easier to do that than admit they were wrong. Perhaps it would affect their income as well if they invested in the AIDS denialism movement.
 

post #59 of 120
7/7/12 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I disagre with the comments that this has not been hostile. There has clearly been a common expected response of what is "rational". If you are not 100% ok with an alternative view, then admit you are judging those who are responding differently. I am thankful I never had to face that issue and make that decision! I, therefore, refuse to judge those who have.


"Alternative viewpoints" apply to things that are subjective. Unfortunately, facts and science are not subjective. The theory of a geocentric universe is not an alternative viewpoint. It is a misconception.

post #60 of 120
7/7/12 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post

I do wonder it we're talking about two different issues here though I as see quite a difference between questioning the need for a particular medication and questioning the existence of a disease.

Eh, in the case of HIV/AIDS, there is a pretty direct link. The anti AZT people are overwhelmingly denialists.

I feel sorry for the old members who felt so censored, edited and repressed that they left entirely.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health and Healing
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Does Mothering Endorse HIV/AIDS denialism