or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Informed Consent Study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Informed Consent Study - Page 3

post #41 of 53
Pek you're creating a total straw man, there.
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I would like to know your opinion.   Do you think some pharmaceuticals are overused?

 

I think that every drug has appropriate indications and when they are indicated, I don't have a problem with them being prescribed.  If you are using "over-prescribed" as meaning the same thing as "prescribed when not indicated," then I agree some drugs like antibiotics are "over-prescribed."  But I think that's a weird and imprecise term for it.  If a drug is needed, then it's needed. 
 

post #43 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I just wanted the pro-vax side to admit that, even without vaccinations, life expectancy would be greater than the dark ages.

 

Life expectancy during the so-called Dark Ages was probably 30-35, with about 20% dying before age 5.  Yes, we'd beat that even without vaxes.  If that's all you want me to concede, you got it.  I just don't think it's a very lofty goal.


Edited by chickabiddy - 12/16/12 at 6:37pm
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

Life expectancy during the so-called Dark Ages was probably 30-35, with about 20% dying before age 5.  Yes, we'd beat that even without vaxes.  If that's all you want me to concede, you got it.  I just don't think it's a very lofty goal.

Way too literal!
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

 

 I think that's a weird and imprecise term for it.  
 

Overused is a weird and imprecise term?  

 

It was the term used by the CDC in the link I shared:

 

"So, what is fueling antibiotic resistance, you may ask? We're finding that the widespread overuse—as well as inappropriate use—of antibiotics is fueling antibiotic resistance. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics is causing even more problems faced by patients. Drug side effects, allergic reactions, and serious diarrheal infections caused by Clostridium difficile* are all popping up as a result of inappropriate antibiotic use. These complications of antibiotic therapy can have serious outcomes, even death."

post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Overused is a weird and imprecise term?  

 

It was the term used by the CDC in the link I shared:

 

"So, what is fueling antibiotic resistance, you may ask? We're finding that the widespread overuse—as well as inappropriate use—of antibiotics is fueling antibiotic resistance. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics is causing even more problems faced by patients. Drug side effects, allergic reactions, and serious diarrheal infections caused by Clostridium difficile* are all popping up as a result of inappropriate antibiotic use. These complications of antibiotic therapy can have serious outcomes, even death."

 

I think inappropriate use is a better term.  Here's the thing...drugs being prescribed in inappropriate situations has nothing to do with the value of the drug or the pharmaceutical industry in general.  And...in case you don't remember your original comment that I questioned you on, you were agreeing that Mirizam that it's better for kids to be "drug-free" and to help them "get off meds" rather than "preferring a world of drugged-up kids."  This is NOT referring to antibiotics and you damn well know it.  You guys are talking about people like my daughter who is miserable and anxious and unable to do her schoolwork without her medication, and is happy and engaged and doing well with it.  "Overuse" doesn't mean much to me.  My question is, does the person need the drug, or not?  And who are you to say they don't? 

post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post


Way too literal!


How very silly of me to respond to the words you wrote.

post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

 

I think inappropriate use is a better term.  Here's the thing...drugs being prescribed in inappropriate situations has nothing to do with the value of the drug or the pharmaceutical industry in general.  And...in case you don't remember your original comment that I questioned you on, you were agreeing that Mirizam that it's better for kids to be "drug-free" and to help them "get off meds" rather than "preferring a world of drugged-up kids."  This is NOT referring to antibiotics and you damn well know it.  You guys are talking about people like my daughter who is miserable and anxious and unable to do her schoolwork without her medication, and is happy and engaged and doing well with it.  "Overuse" doesn't mean much to me.  My question is, does the person need the drug, or not?  And who are you to say they don't? 

 

 

It is possible for drugs to be an appropriate choice for your daughter and for drugs (including such ones as Ritalin) to be over-prescribed.

 

A quote from the second link, discussing the issue of Ritalin overuse:

 

 

"The annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) says the use of the drug Ritalin for children with attention deficit disorder has gone up in more than 50 countries, including Britain, where it could soon reach levels comparable to that in the US.

The report criticises overuse of the drug in America.

Treatment rates for hyperactivity in some American schools are as high as 30 to 40 per cent of a class and children as young as one year old have been known to have been given the drug."

 

You know a drug my youngest has been on?  Antibiotics.  I love love.gif antibiotics.  You know what drug has been overprescribed?  Antibiotics.  See - it is doable - you can think a drug has benefits in some people and some circumstances and still think it is overprescribed in general.  And if you can't…then I really don't have anything more to say.


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/17/12 at 5:33am
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


How very silly of me to respond to the words you wrote.

Except I used lower case, meaning not the literal Dark Ages. Therefore, your response was off. Now, I expect, this will be flagged as off topic, so only your words remain. That is the trend in most vax threads.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

It is possible for drugs to be an appropriate choice for your daughter and for drugs (including such ones as Ritalin) to be over-prescribed.

 

A quote from the second link, discussing the issue of Ritalin overuse:

 

 

"The annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) says the use of the drug Ritalin for children with attention deficit disorder has gone up in more than 50 countries, including Britain, where it could soon reach levels comparable to that in the US.

The report criticises overuse of the drug in America.

Treatment rates for hyperactivity in some American schools are as high as 30 to 40 per cent of a class and children as young as one year old have been known to have been given the drug."

 

You know a drug my youngest has been on?  Antibiotics.  I love love.gif antibiotics.  You know what drug has been overprescribed?  Antibiotics.  See - it is doable - you can think a drug has benefits in some people and some circumstances and still think it is overprescribed in general.  And if you can't…then I really don't have anything more to say.

 

No one refers to kids on antibiotics as "drugged up kids."  Don't you get how offensive that is?  There are situations where drugs are being prescribed inappropriately, but a blanket statement that children are better off not being "drugged up" is offensive and just plain incorrect.  Instead of arguing with me over what percentage of children "should" be on various drugs, why don't you go argue with Mirizam over what she means when she says that kids are better off not being drugged up?  It's a problem, no doubt, when drugs are seen as an easy fix for typical childhood behavior issues, but it is just as big a problem when children are not given the help they need because people are afraid of the Big Bad pharmaceutical companies.

 

And, you know, regarding the part you edited out of your post...no one here said that vaccines saved the world.  What they are saying is that, yes, the human race would go on without them and without a lot of other stuff we take for granted, like clean water.  We know this because there are people who live in places without vaccines and without clean water, and yes, life goes on.  It doesn't take all that much of a life expectancy for a species to go on, and there would be adaptation to compensate for loss of life.  This is meaningless to YOUR child and MY child, who are individuals who deserve their best odds of making their way through this world.  As ALL children do.  I for one am not satisfied with the idea that we'll get, you know, a good strong percentage of the kids through their childhood.  Kids died of VPDs all the time.  Once upon a time smallpox killed something like 35-40% of the people who caught it, and now it's eradicated. This was nothing short of a miracle and I really don't understand why it's not appreciated at the same level as the plumbing that brings the clean water to your house and allows for all the modern hygiene everyone gives all the credit to. 

post #51 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post


Except I used lower case, meaning not the literal Dark Ages. Therefore, your response was off. Now, I expect, this will be flagged as off topic, so only your words remain. That is the trend in most vax threads.

Oh, I understood you.  So did everyone else.  You wanted pro-vaxxers to admit, that even without vaccination, our current life expectancy in developed nations would still be high.  Chickabiddy latched onto the word "Dark Ages" as a way to circumvent the real question, IMHO.

 

My suspicion:  It is not going to happen winky.gif  They will argue 2+4=7 before ceding a point.  I think it decreases their credibility when they can't even admit vaccines are not a huge factor in life expectancy (or bicker about whether some pharmaceuticals are overused)…but what do I know.


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/17/12 at 5:33pm
post #52 of 53

I acknowledged it before and I'll acknowledge it again.  Vaccines are not the only factor in increased life expectancy.  But medical advances -- antibiotics, birth control, IV therapy for dysentery or cholera, etc. -- do play a very significant role.  Life was not beautiful and bucolic "back then", it was nasty, brutish, and short.

post #53 of 53
There is no point to cede. No one ever claimed that vaccines were the one and not reason life expectancy had increased.

Kathy, the only thing that article says for sure is that ADHD diagnosis are on the rise. SOME people in the article SPECULATE that may be because of over diagnosis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Informed Consent Study