Nothing - Page 2

[Mosaic]

Yes, S&D includes those who select and time vaccination according to their family's needs, which may include selecting all and not delaying. I understand that this is confusing, and that's one reason why we're in the process of changing the organization of the vax forum. If you can bear with us for a week or two, we are hoping to make some changes to eliminate confusion and clarify what goes where.

[kathymuggle]

Mosaic - I think admin will also need to sort out whether or not people can link or discuss links of things that are outside its UA.  For example, many skeptic blogs and certainly Dr. Offit are in favour of mandatory vaccines - whereas MDC does not wish to host discussions advocating mandatory vaccines.  

I also think some of the skeptic sites are very disrespectful of non-vaxxers.  Name calling, belittling, etc.  Is linking to that allowed?  I have no issues if the decision goes both ways - no one is allowed to link to hate-filled sites.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 10/31/12 at 5:55am

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

But "selective and delayed "can legitimately include selecting everything and choosing no delays.
.

Not in most contexts, including the context of this forum.

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi, read what mosaic just said. Yes it does.

[Mirzam]

It seems to me that this forum should be renamed to include those that adhere to the CDC vaccination recommendations (or whatever their country's schedule is), to accurately reflect the posting guidelines, although I must say the reference to S&D vaxing is a little confusing, and reads like an after thought, coming right after the "discussion for parents who have make the decision to vaccinate".

The Selective and Delayed Vaccination forum hosts discussion for parents who have made the decision to vaccinate their children (or are making that decision and want information about selective and delayed vaccination) and are seeking the best approach possible. While we will not restrict posting in this forum only to members who have chosen to vaccinate...

[Mosaic]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

It seems to me that this forum should be renamed to include those that adhere to the CDC vaccination recommendations (or whatever their country's schedule is), to accurately reflect the posting guidelines, although I must say the reference to S&D vaxing is a little confusing, and reads like an after thought, coming right after the "discussion for parents who have make the decision to vaccinate".

Yup, renaming is one of the changes a'coming.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Mosaic - I think admin will also need to sort out whether or not people can link or discuss links of things that are outside its UA.  For example, many skeptic blogs and certainly Dr. Offit are in favour of mandatory vaccines - whereas MDC does not wish to host discussions advocating mandatory vaccines.  

I also think some of the skeptic sites are very disrespectful of non-vaxxers.  Name calling, belittling, etc.  Is linking to that allowed?  I have no issues if the decision goes both ways - no one is allowed to link to hate-filled sites.  

Are you serious?  Now you think people shouldn't be able to link to skeptic sites or to anything by Dr. Offit?  Way to stack the deck in your favor.  

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.

Seriously, don't even try equate the two.  That's ridiculous.  

If you don't want anyone's feelings to be hurt, then stay off the internet.  Seriously, I read plenty of hate-filled, disrespectful stuff on gaia health and natural news.  

[Rrrrrachel]

That would mean no CDC links, no who links, a whole bunch of stuff from pubmed would be off the table . . .

Why is there suddenly all this fear of information?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Are you serious?

I put the thought out for Mosaic to consider. I am not "calling for it."  MDC can decide.

I do think linking (and particularly discussing) sites that are against the UA might be questionable.  There is a line around censorship and "conversations MDC does not wish to discuss" that MDC gets to skate.

This isn't just a vaccine issue - do we post links to pro-formula sites?  Do we discuss them?  If those sites bash breastfeeders is that Ok - or not?

[Rrrrrachel]

You realize that would mean you wouldn't be able to link to sites that called vaccines dangerous or advocate not vaccinating.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I put the thought out for Mosaic to consider. I am not "calling for it."  MDC can decide.

I do think linking (and particularly discussing) sites that are against the UA might be questionable.  There is a line around censorship and "conversations MDC does not wish to discuss" that MDC gets to skate.

This isn't just a vaccine issue - do we post links to pro-formula sites?  Do we discuss them?  If those sites bash breastfeeders is that Ok - or not?

Why bother coming onto a forum at all with those kind of rules? I can't think of anything more boring. It would be like standing in a room talking to yourself all day.

[MichelleZB]

I don't get the issue with Paul Offit's income. Of course he made money off his vaccine; he invented it. I don't think anyone should make millions of dollars off of their work (I'm looking at you, hockey players) but our society doesn't impose a salary cap, so we can't do anything about that. In general, I don't have a problem with people being paid for their work. Paul Offit is a vaccine inventor--he made a vaccine that people use, and he was paid for that.

As an inventor of vaccines, naturally he has a fairly in-depth knowledge of how they work, so would really be the perfect person to offer a course on vaccines, their mechanism and history, because it's his area of expertise. That's all.

It's like how a composer would be the best music theory teacher. If they're a really good composer, they might even be commissioned to write symphonies or something and paid for it. That doesn't make them unfairly biased towards music. It makes them familiar with it, and therefore well fit to teach a course at the university level.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by MichelleZB 


It's like how a composer would be the best music theory teacher. If they're a really good composer, they might even be commissioned to write symphonies or something and paid for it. That doesn't make them unfairly biased towards music. It makes them familiar with it, and therefore well fit to teach a course at the university level.

This is a common misperception.

Many highly successful composers are not formally trained in music theory, and have very little understanding of it, whereas most music theory teachers are not good composers. Familiarity with music has absolutely nothing to do with either the ability to compose or the ability to teach.

The same is true for instrumental music teachers; the best musicians are not necessarily good music teachers, and vice versa. Those are two completely separate skills.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by MichelleZB 

I don't get the issue with Paul Offit's income. Of course he made money off his vaccine; he invented it. I don't think anyone should make millions of dollars off of their work (I'm looking at you, hockey players) but our society doesn't impose a salary cap, so we can't do anything about that. In general, I don't have a problem with people being paid for their work. Paul Offit is a vaccine inventor--he made a vaccine that people use, and he was paid for that.

As an inventor of vaccines, naturally he has a fairly in-depth knowledge of how they work, so would really be the perfect person to offer a course on vaccines, their mechanism and history, because it's his area of expertise. That's all.

It's like how a composer would be the best music theory teacher. If they're a really good composer, they might even be commissioned to write symphonies or something and paid for it. That doesn't make them unfairly biased towards music. It makes them familiar with it, and therefore well fit to teach a course at the university level.

and i can bet during that course, the music teacher is not going to tell her students their music choices are wrong ..... unlike a lot of medical drs, who tell people their medical choices are wrong because 'their' experts said so......sorry, you struck a nerve since i teach music. 

[Mosaic]

WildKingdom: lay off kathymuggle. This is a learning process for all of us, so let's all take it down a notch.

Everybody: I'm not an admin, but I'm pretty sure we're not going to ban the rest of the internet from MDC. In fact, our revised UA is much looser than it has been in the past with regard to linking and discussing content outside of MDC. I do not anticipate that changing with the redesign of the Vax forum. Our main interest is how we present and discuss issues HERE.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Why is there suddenly all this fear of MISinformation AND PROPAGANDA FUNDED BY THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM AND COVER UP THE HARM FROM VACCINES?

I corrected your post.

The answer is, we are attempting to prevent more people from being seriously harmed from vaccines the way our children were harmed, since we allowed our children to be vaccinated before we learned that vaccines are more harmful and less effective than we'd been told.

Isn't that cute.

Those claims are not supported by scientific evidence.

I want to protect people, too, but I dot see the need to shield them from information I disagree with. Let them see all the information and decide for themselves.

[emmy526]

Claims of vaccine injured children have been compensated in the court....http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


Isn't that cute.
Those claims are not supported by scientific evidence.
I want to protect people, too, but I dot see the need to shield them from information I disagree with. Let them see all the information and decide for themselves.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't mean the claim that some children are injured. That's absolutely true. Vaccination is not risk free. It's more claims about the frequency of injury and that it's significantly more frequent than claimed by people like the CDC.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't mean the claim that some children are injured. That's absolutely true. Vaccination is not risk free. It's more claims about the frequency of injury and that it's significantly more frequent than claimed by people like the CDC.

But it IS significantly more frequent than claimed by the CDC.

Even the CDC recognizes that only a small fraction of severe reactions are recognized and reported to VAERS.

After our severe vaccine reactions, neither myself nor ANY of the many doctors who examined me and my children were contacted for follow-up information on our reactions.

Over the last decade, I have met countless people, mostly parents whose children suffered severe vaccine reactions similar to the ones in our family. Most weren't as lucky as me; their reactions weren't recognized as such until years later. Some of them are still being told by their doctors that their reactions were just a coincidence.

Since most of our children who had severe vaccine reactions (medically DOCUMENTED severe reactions!) also had autism diagnoses, you would think the genetic researchers would be swooping down on us, in haste to study this obvious link. "Hey, maybe that genetic link we've spent millions of dollars searching for might have something to do with genetic predisposition to vaccine reaction! Or maybe there's a medical reason why this subgroup is both having severe reactions to vaccines AND developing autism!"

"Oh, wait a minute. We're not supposed to research anything that could possibly make vaccines look bad. Let's look at proximity to highways, or age of fathers instead."

And since most of us aren't interested in the stress, time, and money necessary to go to court, we have not filed claims with "Vaccine Court." There are many ignorant people out there, in the medical community, in the government, even in the CDC (imagine that!) who believe that all severe reactions were appropriately reported and that those people filed a claim with "Vaccine Court."

Then there are others--usually pharma shills, but sometimes well-meaning people who have been bamboozled by pharma shills--who insist that parents of vaccine-injured children are just looking for something to blame, or worse, are looking to make a buck off of "Vaccine Court" for what surely must be (said with sarcasm) genetic disorders.

Only vaccine injury is not a genetic disorder, and we are not looking for something to blame.

We are looking to PREVENT similar injury, and we are looking for non-invasive ways to treat such injury to recover our children.

You would think that mainstream science would be anxious to study the children who HAVE recovered from vaccine injury, but no, mainstream science isn't even willing to look at the children who have been injured by vaccines.

Ask any of the thousands of victims who were actually compensated by "Vaccine Court." A gag order was instituted, and they were never, ever contacted by anyone from mainstream science who wanted to study their children or their records. But the government quietly pays for the medical conditions--which include autism, while insisting that vaccines are safe and effective.

Many of those families are now bravely coming forward with their stories, risking coverage of their children's medical conditions.

Oh, and ask MDC forum member Michael Belkin, whose infant daughter was killed by the (completely unnecessary) hep B shot she was given. Here is his testimony to the House Reform Committee: http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2012/10/michael-belkins-congressional-testimony-on-hepatitis-b-vaccine/

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi it's more significant according to you, not any actual research.

Vaers is not the only means we have for quantifying the rate of adverse events. We've been through this before, but you keep saying the same inaccurate stuff.