Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › "Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

"Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next? - Page 6  

post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Except when it's not.

It can't be effective at preventing infection when it's ineffective, which is 59-89% of the time.  So when you repeatedly state that unvaccinated are 9-23 times more likely to contract pertussis than vaccinated - that can only be WHEN THE VACCINE WORKS.

No. That doesn't even make sense.
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

 

Thank you for that.

 

At one time I might've considered getting a vaccine or two, but exposure to vaccine pushers and the negative way they push their agenda actually makes me even more against receiving one now. 


Me too (although I'm still considering a couple).  Every now and then I wonder if I'm missing some vital bit of information that would make me more enthusiastic about vaccines, then I see what tactics the enthusiastically pro-vax crowd is relying on, and I feel reassured that I haven't missed anything.

post #103 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


Me too (although I'm still considering a couple).  Every now and then I wonder if I'm missing some vital bit of information that would make me more enthusiastic about vaccines, then I see what tactics the enthusiastically pro-vax crowd is relying on, and I feel reassured that I haven't missed anything.

This is exactly how I feel, with a couple things reversed of course smile.gif. I started really getting into vaccine research because soooo many people I interact with delay or don't vaccinate. I kept wondering if there was something I was missing (and still do sometimes! Then I redo a lot of research).
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

Is there an AU VAERS? I swear, when it was time to research effects, I spent hours on those lists. What if Australian citizens have no access to a VAERS kind of thing?

 

ETA: Okay, I found the answer. AU physicians report the same way US physicians do--sort of, but AU adverse events seem to feed a kind of VAERS (AEFI?) also. But again, they are relying on the docs to report the issue, so I wonder if they have the same underreporting problem as the US?

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-pubs-2004-cdi2803-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi2803b.pdf

 

Do you understand the limitations of the VAERS?

 

Did you want me to find the entry where the father reported that the child gained the ability to fly after the vaccine? That is still in there somewhere.

 

If you think that VAERS proves any kind of link you are sadly mistaken.

post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Some places have experimented with cocooning - which is when all members of the family, and caregivers, are given a pertussis booster to try and protect the newborn.  Australia had it, then rescinded it as they decided it was not effective. 

 

The govt decided there was not enough evidence to show it was cost effective, big difference to what you are implying.

post #106 of 119
RE: Wikipedia, I 'll have to dig up a link, but I remember the founder was interviewed and asked if people should be citing his site to buttress their arguments. He said no because no one should be citing ANY encylopedia for that. The role of an encyclopedia, wiki or not, is to give a broad overview of an issue, but a responsible researcher needs to dig deeper. You'll never see me cite Wikipedia for my arguments. Period.

The Wiki article in this thread quotes Specter's OPINION. His personal (and verifiably false) view that NVIC is "anti-vax" holds no more weight than anyone else's in this thread.
post #107 of 119
He probably meant for research, in which case he's correct. Students writing papers, etc, should be using primary sources not encyclopedias. I doubt he meant people talking on discussion forums.
post #108 of 119
I expect a high caliber of supporting evidence either way.
post #109 of 119
Alright then.

I think wiki can be really useful in conversations like these. It gives a good overview of a topic. I don't see it as substantially different than using a source lik novice or even the CDC, vs only citing pubmed sources. They all have their place. IMO.
post #110 of 119
Wiki is also generally very well cited and referenced.
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

The Wiki article in this thread quotes Specter's OPINION. His personal (and verifiably false) view that NVIC is "anti-vax" holds no more weight than anyone else's in this thread.

 

The NVIC is anti-vax, take a look at this page:

 

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/Autism.aspx

 

It is all innuendo about vaccines and autism, it does not come out and say it but it also fails to mention the dozens of studies across multiple countries covering 10's of thousands of children that did not find a single link between vaccines and autism.

 

They put up an anecdotal scare story about a child that "got" autism after the MMR vaccine, then addressed his "immune dysfunction", then he got better but says nothing at all about the studies that show no such link then the NVIC can safely be classified as "anti-vax".

 

If they are not anti-vax please explain the lack of mentioning the studies that find no link.

post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I have no interest in about 90% of this thread, but Wikipedia is one of my pet issues.
When examined head to head via random auditing, Wikipedia was as accurate as the encyclopedia brittanica. Yes, anyone can edit it. But you know what happens when you have a large group of people working on an article and few of them have an agenda? The handful of people posting inaccurate stuff immediately have it corrected by the much larger number working to keep the article accurate.
Wikipedia is not a primary source. however, it IS remarkably accurate and reliable. The whole "you can put anything on Wikipedia" nonsense is just not true, and really belies a misunderstanding about how things like Wikipedia work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Right. You have a large group of mainstream peopleie the majority working on something and someone comes along who is not mainstream and corrects some misinformation ie the minority. And the majority jumps all over it declaring it bullshit so it stands. No I'm pretty familiar with how it works.
post #113 of 119
Like I said. Wiki is usually well cited and referenced.
post #114 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Like I said. Wiki is usually well cited and referenced.

Kind of the definition of mainstream information (usually)!
post #115 of 119

A heads up for everyone.  I have asked that Wendy remove her post regarding school shootings.  I am also going to ask Kathymuggle, Wendy, and tux to stop the personal attacks.  Your posting privileges to this thread if they continue.  Kathymuggle discussing other posters is still a personal attack and will not be allowed.  I am removing those posts.  If you wish to discuss this, you can do so via PM, not on the open forum.  Thanks!

post #116 of 119

In reading the posts on this thread over the last week, it is very clear to me that those who oppose freedom of choice when it comes to vaccination are much more interested in attacking individuals who are advocating for freedom of information on this subject then they are in participating in a respectful and educated exchange of ideas on this scientific issue.

 

They have said many things about me which are simply untrue and completely unverifiable but I am not concerned about that - they have been doing this for many years. But I am concerned about their misinformation about deaths from infectious diseases.

 

Australia, like the US, is currently in a record-breaking epidemic of whooping cough (pertussis). Like the US, Australia has a very high rate of vaccination. Mass vaccination started in Australia in 1953 and today, we have more cases of pertussis then we did before mass vaccination - despite more than 92% of our children aged under 4 being fully vaccinated. 75% of these kids were fully vaccinated, 14% were partially vaccinated and 11% were either unvaccinated or were too young to be vaccinated at the time of diagnosis.

 

If the vaccine were working and our vaccination rate were over 90%, you would expect that the majority of those getting the disease would be vaccinated even if the vaccine were at least partially effective just by the law of averages. But to have had a huge increase in the reports of pertussis along with a huge increase in our vaccination rate (in 1991, only 71% of eligible children were vaccinated with just under 350 cases reported nationwide vs our current 92% vaccination rate and almost 40,000 cases reported last year) indicates that the vaccine isn't working.

 

And the medical literature shows very clearly that it isn't working for one of 2 possible reasons (there could be more):

 

1- The bacteria has mutated - potentially due to the use of the pertussis vaccine (in much the same way that overuse of antibiotics selects for other strains of antibiotic-resistent bacteria). In Australia, 84% of the pertussis that is being diagnosed is caused by a different bacteria then the one in the shot. This 'newer' strain seems to be more virulent, leading to an increase in deaths amongst vulnerable infants. The same exact situation is occurring in the US. The unvaccinated are being blamed but the evidence is pointing to the fact that the vaccine may be responsible.

 

2- New research is emerging to show that those who receive the whooping cough vaccine may be up to 40 times more likely to contract a related illness whose symptoms are virtually identical to whooping cough. B. pertussis is the bacterium that causes whooping cough; b. parapertussis is a related bacterium. Those who are vaccinated against pertussis may be far more susceptible to infection with parapertussis and babies are just as likely to die or be hospitalised with this infection as they are with pertussis. Unless serotyping is done, the cases will most likely be recorded as whooping cough.

 

Lastly, I would like to make a comment on the death of Dana McCaffery. I never contacted her parents. When she died, the media immediately blamed the unvaccinated for her death. She was hospitalised one day, diagnosed the next and died a few days later. To the best of my knowledge at the time, the best test for whooping cough was a blood culture whose results take up to 10-14 days for a positive result. This is why I contacted the Public Health Unit (not the hospital, not the parents) and I was able to do so because Dana's parents had come public about their child's death. 

 

I spoke with Paul Corben of the North Coast Public Health Unit and he informed me that Dana's case of whooping cough had been diagnosed by a newer quick test. I later researched and discovered that the quick test can give up to 100% false positive results and is not at all reliable which is why in at least one media report, I stated that Dana supposedly died of whooping cough. This is what those who oppose the AVN call harassment though they don't ever question those who abuse parents whose children (like my own) have either been seriously injured or died as a result of their vaccination.

 

It is time to take the fear and hatred out of this issue. If the vaccines work, then the vaccinated children and adults of this world should not be concerned about those of us who choose to abstain due to our own research. If vaccination cannot protect the individual, then they cannot protect at all.

 

Please excuse the length of this response, but I felt it was important to set the record straight. I know that i will be attacked by those who regularly follow my comments on any threads in any forums in order to denigrate me personally and as I said before, that is not my concern. I am simply commenting to say - let's stop worrying about the individuals and start worrying about the lack of science to show that vaccinations are either safe, effective or worth administering to every single man, woman and child in this world. As Barbara Loe Fisher from the National Vaccine Information Centre says - show us the science. That's all we ask as well. Show us the science, and give us the choice.

post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post


Right. You have a large group of mainstream peopleie the majority working on something and someone comes along who is not mainstream and corrects some misinformation ie the minority. And the majority jumps all over it declaring it bullshit so it stands. No I'm pretty familiar with how it works.

 

No that is not how it works, it does not matter if the editor is part of the majority or minority, edits that are well referenced will stay.

 

If the edit is removed I can only guess that it did not meet the referencing requirements. There is no conspiracy to suppress anything but poorly referenced edits.

post #118 of 119

Again, I am going to ask people to contact me via PM if they have an issue with moderation. When you post your issue in the open thread with the quoted thing you find offensive, I then not only have to look at the post you are refering to and see if it does need an edit, I then have to go and remove the post you have quoted.  This makes double the work for the moderators.

 

  If you see something that doesn't get taken care of in a time that you think is appropriate, please keep in mind that moderators are volunteers, often with jobs, and with families that they are tryiing to spend time with over the holidays or working on things like the Holiday Helper program.  We are not ignoring you.  We are busy with things outside of MDC over the holidays.

 

  I would love to see the members of this board take a time out and maybe have a truce for a couple more days.  I am sure that I and other moderators will devote some extra TLC to the vax forum when the holidays are over. 

 

 

With that in mind, I am closing this thread for the time being so I can go to sleep and then celebrate the New Year tomorrow!  I hope you all have a marvelous holiday!  flowersforyou.gif

post #119 of 119

I have gone through the thread and removed a few posts that are against the UA. There were also quite a few posts from new members that were held in moderation that are now posted. This should not be mistaken for these posts getting an official "moderator stamp of approval". What this means is that they were held for moderation simply because they are new members and they have been checked for spam and a few other things. I will reiterate with QOTM said, several UA violations, misunderstanding about appropriate channels for discussing moderator actions and quoting and debating flagged posts meant that this one thread took quite a few moderators and hours to get through. Members should avoid contributing to this so everyone can expect a good turnaround. Please remember that Vax is just one of a hundred or so forums on MDC.   Happy new year, everyone! 

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › "Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next?