or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next? - Page 5  

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

This part in particular interests me. I wonder if there is verified data that the parents were the transmitters of the bug? Did the parent need to be symptomatic in order for the infant to contract the illness? Do you have a link for this? (Sorry if I missed it in previous pages).

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/family-rues-call-on-whooping-cough-booster-ban/story-e6frg8y6-1226533226786

 

If by symptomatic you mean currently have whooping cough in the infectious stage then the answer would be yes.

post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

WendyAdams - thanks for thinking of posting the NVIC Wikipedia history page. I didn't think of that, but it does make for revealing reading!

 

 

No worries, the NVIC history page is tame compared to some, seems not that many people are concerned enough to fight the anti-vaccination label.      .. go check out the Australian Vaccination Networks history ....  much more colourful.    

post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

 

Well that's not exactly true. If after reviewing all the information more and more people decide against vaccines, there go the vaccine profits. ;-)

 

Vaccines are 2% of turnover, let alone profits, that is their motivation? Really?

post #84 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

To be anti-vaccination is to oppose all vaccines for all people at all times. Do you have any indisputable, concrete, primary-source evidence that this is the official position of the National Vaccine Information Center?

 

You wanted proof that the NVIC is anti-vaccine then here it is:

 

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

 

 

Quote:
In 1990, NVIC was contacted by California mother, Cindy Goldenberg, who explained how her bright healthy son became autistic following his MMR vaccine. Following many visits to different doctors in her attempt to find out what had happened to her son, multiple tests were performed to evaluate his immune function and revealed a high antibody count to rubella vaccine. After conducting research into the connection between rubella infection and autism, she contacted an immunologist and they put together a biomedical protocol to address his immune dysfunction which resulted in her son recovering from autism.
Since 1990, a growing number of physicians have acknowledged that development of regressive autism has multi-factorial causes and that there are many questions yet to be answered about the biological causes for and prevention and treatment of autism. What has become clear since the autism-vaccine connection was first reported in 1985 is that many children with regressive autism are getting better from biomedical and holistic health approaches to healing brain and immune system dysfunction.

 

Typical anti-vax methodology, tell an anecdote, first A happened then B happened, therefore A caused B.

 

Not a single mention on that page of the dozens and dozens of studies across multiple countries covering 10's of thousands of children that found no link, none, zip, nadda between autism and vaccines = NVIC is anti-vaccine.

post #85 of 119

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


Edited by lanamommyphd07 - 12/29/12 at 5:43am
post #86 of 119
///
post #87 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

This part in particular interests me. I wonder if there is verified data that the parents were the transmitters of the bug? Did the parent need to be symptomatic in order for the infant to contract the illness? Do you have a link for this? (Sorry if I missed it in previous pages).

From what I understand, newborns often do catch it from a family member.  This mainstream site said about 1/2 of all whooping cough in infants was transmitted via the mother.http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pdf/48855.pdf.

 

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.

 

That being said, if I lived in an area with a high amount of pertussis, I may very well get a pertussis booster before pregnancy or at birth in an attempt to keep the infant safe (I am typically non-vax) …and the baby would be sheltered from contact with lots of people during the first 4 or 5 months of its life.  Pertussis is nasty in babies.  

post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


That it is not appropriate under the UA to discuss other posters.

Aren't they talking about other posters in a nasty way? Shouldn't we be able to call people on being inappropriate if the are being inappropriate?  I am genuinely interested in knowing if pro-vaxxers think the behaviour of Wendy and tux thus far has been acceptable. 

 

lurk.gif  while I wait for an answer......

post #89 of 119

The issue of what we allow in terms of discussing posting and members as well as how we discuss forum issues is something that the moderators are working on getting an answer to the community. Would members be willing to give us a bit of time to work that out?  

post #90 of 119
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
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

Kathy, I read back through first the general UA and then the general vax forum UA, then the debate forum UA and finally the 'big girl panties' guidelines. My interpretation is that your line of questioning is not fitting with the guidelines. Would you mind reading through them again and if you feel I am in error, PMing me to have another look? I will also be happy to bring your question to the main discussion about the bigger issues being considered. 

No, it's Ok.  You can poof the question if you like.

 

The question has been up for 5 hours. I know many, but not all pro-vaxxers have been online, and have not bothered to answer.  I will draw my own conclusions greensad.gif  They are welcome to pm the answer if they like.  I guess asking vaxxers to speak up against crap they see is too much. A similar thing happened after the oh-so-charming thread where they mocked parents who believe their children were hurt by vaccines.  Did any of them speak out against it, even when they were given the opportunity?  No, they did not.  Cause before people, I guess.  If you can ban me from this forum, but not the INV forum, I would appreciate it. 

 

I find it quite odd that MeepyCat was able to call someones post eugenicist and anti-humanist on another thread, Wendy and Tux have spouted vile on this thread, but I cannot ask vaxxers if they think the vile is acceptable.    Honestly, there are a lot of non-vaxxers who feel vaxxers are heavily favoured on these forums and do not want to be here any more. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/29/12 at 1:50pm
post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

From what I understand, newborns often do catch it from a family member.  This mainstream site said about 1/2 of all whooping cough in infants was transmitted via the mother.http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pdf/48855.pdf.

 

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.

 

That being said, if I lived in an area with a high amount of pertussis, I may very well get a pertussis booster before pregnancy or at birth in an attempt to keep the infant safe (I am typically non-vax) …and the baby would be sheltered from contact with lots of people during the first 4 or 5 months of its life.  Pertussis is nasty in babies.  

 

Yeah...I'd be interested in seeing more research. These kinds of info sheets always leave me asking more.

But another consideration, and this is based on personal experience with one of our secretaries (at a medical clinic) who had pertussis for several months and was misdiagnosed several times......What if we are failing in diagnosing troublesome coughs in teens and adults? Since we can actually treat pertussis in older kids/adults, is one of the reasons we see an increase that it used to be just a "childhood illness" and thus is not always considered in diagnosing adults? Or-alternately, are some families quick to go to the doc for abx to treat the "sinus infection" or other misdiagnosis when they unknowingly were affected by bordetella pertussis, thus protecting the infant having no idea that they just prevented a case of pertussis in the home? Is the swab an expensive one to run, thus is a rare test to do? 

 

FWIW, It doesn't seem as if the pertussis vax is securely preventing folks from contracting the illness as evidenced by its appearance in so many vaxed people, so I hesitate to make the jump that a vax in the other members of a household would prevent the infant from contracting it. I'd be a big fan of an initiative to alert folks to the symptoms and encourage a consideration that it could be pertussis, and that it's treatable in addition to offering a vax to prevent.

post #93 of 119

lanamommy...I will be happy to discuss this with you....in the non vax forum (and in a few hours as I need to get back to work).  Hopefully others will join us.

 

K

post #94 of 119
The vaccine protects somewhere between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 people, depending on age and which vaccine we're talking about. That does fade year to year after the vaccine is administered, but it absolutely IS effective at preventing infection, and even more effective at preventing serious infection.
post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The vaccine protects somewhere between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 people, depending on age and which vaccine we're talking about. That does fade year to year after the vaccine is administered, but it absolutely IS effective at preventing infection, and even more effective at preventing serious infection.

 

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.

post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Fear of vaccination is an unreasonable fear that does not align with the facts.  The risk of adverse reaction to vaccination is miniscule in comparison to the risks associated with the diseases, yet anti vaccinationists cannot see that.  Indeed, there is more change that a child will be injured on a trampoline or in a car, yet these same people have trampolines and travel in cars.  Children get more toxins in their normal day to day living than in an immunisation yet these people do nothing about the environment.

 

 

Since you are new here, I guess you don't realize that many of us who you deem "anti-vaccinationists" have children who WERE injured from vaccines.  We believed all the bullshit that you are spewing, got our kids all their shots, and now how children who are permanently damaged from vaccines.

 

Ironically, these are the same kids that people like you rail about creating herd immunity for - you know, the ones who can't be vaccinated, but you have no sympathy for them anyway and call us, their parents, crazy, stupid, conspiracy theorists, etc.

 

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  I wish I could be as naive as you, but my experiences and child's diagnoses preclude that for me.

post #97 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

No, it's Ok.  You can poof the question if you like.

 

If you can ban me from this forum, but not the INV forum, I would appreciate it. 

 

 

I poofed much of the above quote just to be sure I wasn't unwittingly copying a UAV or anything associated (just in case) ;-)

 

Kathy--I've been a lurker, learner, debater, etc. for a while on and off over the years. I notice that I hang out for a while, and then back off, then come back. One of the reasons is the dichotomy...I've been oft-accused of being anti-vax..but this is not true. Honestly, I've been accused of virtually everything under the sun. But I think there is a thing I've learned along the way, and that is to have compassion for where people are at the time that they are. At one point my mother thought I was reckless over the vax issue...but then she met some more people and saw the things I did. She understood now from my point of view. I can only offer the same for those who may be operating under assumptions that not using vax means a set of characteristics that have heinous and inhumane attached. When I try on the provax activist shoes, I can for a brief moment see why and how they might be coming to a conclusion, and when I step into a vehemently opposing vax's shoes, I can see the same. I think sometimes it takes so much patience and kindness and sometimes that's a lot of effort to put into a discussion board. It's much easier for some to spew. MDC at one point really was quite polite, even in big debates, but I also remember a big huge flame I got once a few years back for no reasonable explanation. It was just the vibe. Some threads take on a life of their own, and sometimes it makes for a fascinating read, but other times we're left with jaw2.gif!

 

Don't let it get you down! You don't need to be banned over your frustrations, do you? You have valuable insights and information to provide! Sometimes a couple of posters on a board are irritating, but remember the lurkers. There are a lot of folk who just read. They may be quite smart not to engage at this point, but they might be learning a style of compassion and thoughtful debate on the boards that they might attribute to the nonvaxing crowd ;-)

 

Okay, then, back to the topic eh?

post #98 of 119
Completely off topic, but I just wanted to chime in and say yes, please remember the lurkers! I always read, hardly ever respond. I tend to focus my attentions on those who seem "in the middle". They are compassionate and don't fly off the handle when writing on the boards. The others, on both the pro vax and anti vax fringes I tend to not read so much or place so much weight on what they write..

I just wanted to say I hope you dont leave I thoroughly enjoy your responses. :-)
post #99 of 119
Thread Starter 
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.

I just can't help pointing out the maths problems here. For something to reduce the risk of pertussis by factors of 9-23 it obviously doesn't work sometimes. If it worked all the time it would be reducing the risk by a factor of infinity which is obviously not possible.
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Since you are new here, I guess you don't realize that many of us who you deem "anti-vaccinationists" have children who WERE injured from vaccines.  We believed all the bullshit that you are spewing, got our kids all their shots, and now how children who are permanently damaged from vaccines.

 

Ironically, these are the same kids that people like you rail about creating herd immunity for - you know, the ones who can't be vaccinated, but you have no sympathy for them anyway and call us, their parents, crazy, stupid, conspiracy theorists, etc.

 

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.  I wish I could be as naive as you, but my experiences and child's diagnoses preclude that for me.

 

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. 

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