The demise of the validity of cocooning has been greatly exaggerated.
Related Forum Threads
- HPV series for male sexually active college freshman? Last post on 7/9/13 at 6:41pm in Preteens and Teens
- Debate this meme Last post on 10/21/13 at 5:29am in Vaccinations Debate
- Observations about pertussis and vaccines from a peds RN Last post on 10/11/13 at 7:04pm in Vaccinating on Schedule
- U.S measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years Last post on 9/20/13 at 4:59pm in Vaccinations Debate
- New study confirms unvaccinated children are at higher risk of contracting whooping cough Last post on 9/17/13 at 1:51pm in Vaccinations Debate
My Vaccine Info
Last edited: 3/4/13
- Vaccinations: Why All the Fuss?Last edited: 2/24/13
- Resources for Non-vaccinating FamiliesLast edited: 1/18/13
- Frontline's War on Selectively Vaccinating ParentsLast edited: 3/14/13
- The Right to RefuseLast edited: 3/20/13
Study: Not Enough Evidence That HPV Vaccine Is Safe and Effective - Page 4post #62 of 24210/31/12 at 5:34pmQuote:Here is a challenge for the anti-vaxxers out there. Try, for one day, to pretend like you understand that vaccines are safe and effective. Relax for a moment and let the truth of the science wash over you. Read the studies. Challenge your own beliefs. Open your mind to the possibility. I did it for your side, and now I ask you to try it for your kids.
I am not anti-vax, i am pro choice....and, I did that once, and then was lied to about my son's obvious reactions he was having all along. The truth of the science washed over my son and gave him life long complications. I saw it with my own eyes happening each and every time he was vaccinated, when i 'let the science wash over me' and yes, it sure as heck made me challenge not only my beliefs, but to actually question the dr and his excuses for what was going on with my son. I tried it for my son, it didn't work... i wasn't about to take the same chance with my subsequent children.post #63 of 24210/31/12 at 6:19pmQuote:
I don't think it is the information people object to. Have information? Bring it on. Just don't be lazy (not talking to you - just in general) and link it to a site who spends a lot of time spewing hatred against a large number of the members here.
I don't really think linking to hate filled sites accomplishes anything positive.
This conversation is had amongst non-vaxxers, btw. There are non-vaxxers who choose not to link to sites like Age of Autism (in addition to not using such sites) and the like because they know it gets others hackles up and shuts down conversations.
Everyone wants to see studies and numbers (it is one thing most on this board have in common).
Edited by kathymuggle - 10/31/12 at 7:56pmpost #64 of 24210/31/12 at 6:28pmpost #65 of 24210/31/12 at 6:38pmQuote:Originally Posted by SkewedD
Thank you for your response; I think you offer some fair criticism. As a scientist writing a blog, there is always a fine line between the technical writing and having people actually read the blog. In my day job, I do in fact publish many of those scientific papers that you are asking for. The blog, on the other hand, synthesizes the knowledge I've gathered over the years.
It would be very difficult, for example, to post concisely but yet provide all of the scientific literature about why we know beyond any doubt that HPV causes cervical cancer, a scientific fact that Tomljenovic and Shaw seem to dismiss in their paper. Such a journey would begin in the 1800's when cervical cancer was a "whore's disease" and progress through the present day, when we've come to realize that up to 85% of the population has HPV; fewer with oncogenic HPV; and fewer still who develop cancer.
So I'm at a bit of a loss, because the scientific papers that I take the time to craft are not going appear on a blog; they will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. This is because they are the culmination of 6-12 months plus of work. Since I am not paid to blog, I cannot devote that amount of time to blog entries. What I try to do with my blog is give a view at 30,000 feet, based on my years as an epidemiologist.
Thanks again for the reply.
It should not be difficult then to provide an annotated bibliography or list of studies that questioning parents can use to further their understanding of the issue. Your own published works may be included, especially if they provide an adequate rebuttal to some of the arguments made by Shaw and Tomljenovic. I appreciate that your blog is probably not intended to be a parental educational resource; however, if there are many of us looking beyond the cartoonish pamphlets and other laughable materials handed out by government agencies, then it might be worthwhile linking the science that you'd prefer we read. The "anti-vax" blogs do the same.
Particularly, I'd like to know what's been published that directly contradicts Shaw's 2009 work:
As I mentioned, I don't usually rely on blogs, of either "side," for the bulk of my information. They might provide a starting point, depending on content and author, obviously, but the literature is what I'm going to review in consultation with my family's physician.post #66 of 24210/31/12 at 6:47pm
Yeah, well, if you want to call someone on linking to a hate filled non-vax site (and put the offending statements in quotes) go for it.
I do not know if linking and discussing hate-filled sites should be banned, but that still does not make it a good idea.
What people consider hate-filled is also up for debate.post #67 of 24210/31/12 at 6:50pmpost #68 of 24211/1/12 at 2:17am
Interesting that this theme of banning skeptics sites has shown up suddenly on multiple threads. I agree that sometimes their tone is off, but so is the tone on some anti-vax sites when they discuss Paul Offit or the CDC....
Wildkingdom put my thoughts well in the other thread this came up on (see here: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1366492/nothing/20#post_17157475)Quote:There's a helluva difference between linking to a skeptic site that is disrespectful of anti-vaxers and a true hate site like whale.to that preaches anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Any though this is off topic. Shall we go back to discussing the safety and efficacy of HPV?post #69 of 24211/1/12 at 4:44amAnd this is why the old UA had so many restrictions on discussing off-MDC content.
People post mean, hateful, generalized, inaccurate pseudoinformation all over the internet. We know this, but we try our best to sort through it, discern the parts that are helpful, and bring them here to share and discuss while disregarding the rest. We will likely interpret the same information differently, so, with that in mind:
Rrrrrachel: please edit your post attacking Taximom. If you don't agree with her interpretation of the results, you are welcome to disagree, but stay focused on the issue and not the poster.
Taximom: please edit your posts to remove speculation about member's gender... it personal and off-topic. I will talk with the admins about reviewing the site, but just a heads-up that the list of sites that are actually blocked on MDC is, to my knowledge, extremely small.
SkewedD, if I misinterpreted your post and you meant it as Rrrrachel and prosciencemum clarified, then please edit your post so that others don't make the same mistake I did. Otherwise, I can delete the post for you, but you're going to have to do more than make an oopsie on the forum guidelines to earn a ban from me.post #70 of 24211/1/12 at 5:28amQuote:
Not really. I mentioned it on another thread and maybe Taxi read it and used it as a jumping off point…or maybe she too was becoming annoyed by the proliferation of skeptic sites being linked.
The skeptic sites I have seen are not just pro-vax (there are lots of decent pro-vax sites) they are actively disrespectful towards non-vaxxers. Non-vaxxers are stupid, incompetent, selfish, manipulative…..and that is just from the first vaccine page of the skewed distribution site!post #71 of 24211/1/12 at 5:32ampost #72 of 24211/1/12 at 5:36am
Skewed and name calling….right down at the bottom of the page:
I counted about 7 links to Skeptic sites in the last 2 or 3 week - most on the moms who thoughtfully vaccinate page.
In any event, I think the matter is settled for me. I got it off my chest that I think most Skeptic sites are pretty vile (just excuses to name call, really, I think they could make their points without resorting to being hateful) and that linking to these sites is not overly helpful for discussion among diverse groups or a respectful atmosphere. If people want to link to it, I will just point out their ickiness. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 5:59ampost #73 of 24211/1/12 at 5:54ampost #74 of 24211/1/12 at 5:57ampost #75 of 24211/1/12 at 5:59ampost #76 of 24211/1/12 at 6:01ampost #77 of 24211/1/12 at 6:28amQuote:
Actually, I thought the bingo card on Skewed's site was funny
The name calling was the bottom blog. It was written by skewed (I assume) and not a link. it is called :Dear Anti-vaxxer: This is why I do not care for you. If you are really curious, pm me and I will C/P the words. It is too long for copyright here.
The thoughtful moms thread does not usually upset me. Some of it is kind of interesting. I am ticked off that non-vaxxers are not really allowed to post on it, when vaxxers most definitely are allowed to post on non-vax forum threads. The skeptics sites do not upset me personally (I am rarely upset by sites I do not post on), and honestly, I am pretty aware some pro-vaxxers think non-vaxxers are a bunch of morons. It is not a news flash or anything. I do spend a fair bit of time posting and engaging in debate on MDC, though, so I think a respectful tone here is important (even if I do not always live up to it). Repeatedly linking to sites that go out of their way to call non-vaxxers names does not contribute to a respectful atmosphere.
I am finding myself getting repetitive, though, so…over and out.
Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 7:40ampost #78 of 24211/1/12 at 7:07ampost #79 of 24211/1/12 at 7:08ampost #80 of 24211/1/12 at 7:28amQuote:
Nah, I am not.
The internet has given me thicker skin than I had once upon a time.
I can have an issue with something without being personally upset by it.
Post 84 by Adinal on thoughtful moms:
"I have asked the non-vaxers to not post and bring their viewpoints to the thread. We are working on keeping it to just mamas who vax"
Edited by kathymuggle - 11/1/12 at 7:59am
- Vaccinations: Why All the Fuss?
- › Bed times 2 minutes ago
- › The Fertility Challenged One Thread 4 minutes ago
- › Can we see your Christmas tree? 13 minutes ago
- › December Spend-Less Challenge: Let's Fill Our Stockings with... 14 minutes ago
- › High income/high debt thread 17 minutes ago
- › Red Raspberry Leaf Tea tribe 26 minutes ago
- › 8 week Healthy Weight Loss Challenge version 12 (enrolling through... 27 minutes ago
- › Enter the BabyKicks and The Mindful Home Giveaway! 33 minutes ago
- › Balancing frugality and reality, w/o guilt - long post alert 35 minutes ago
- › Happy to have found other exclusive pumpers 35 minutes ago
- › Bear Stays Up for Christmas by rosemarievpaulson
- › The Night Before Christmas by rjdoghouse
- › The Polar Express by sassyfirechick
- › Polar Express by Melanie Mayo
- › The Return of the Light: Twelve Tales from Around the World for the... by Terry Stafford
- › The Shortest Day: Celebrating the Winter Solstice by Terry Stafford
- › The Diaper-Free Baby: The Natural Toilet Training Alternative by Fembot
- › The Snow Queen by Astraia
- › The Snowy Day by janonia
- › Christmas in the Big Woods by Melanie Mayo
- › Five Free, Festive Ways to Have Fun at Christmas by Monica S
- › Cosleeping in a Coca-Cola Commercial by Brian Leaf
- › Terms and Conditions: BabyKicks and The... by Cynthia Mosher
- › Should You Care About the Photo of Gisele... by Monica S
- › Christmas Through Their Eyes by AmandaK
- › 6 Mistakes People Make When a Friend's... by momofnatasha
- › Hyland's Holiday Challenge Mothering... by JenniO11
- › Lead in Christmas Lights, Toxic Decorations... by Amy Serotkin
- › Can Attachment Parents Put Their Own... by KidsInTheHouse
- › Phases of a Nursling by OliviaHinebaugh