New Posts  All Forums:
 

peer studies? proof??

post #1 of 26
2/15/13 at 7:01pm
Thread Starter 
I'm totally against vaccines. I have read enough on my own to believe they are dangerous and do not truly prevent disease...but always feel a little helpless standing against people of the conventional medical community who think they know better. One in particular has asked me if there are peer reviewed studies to support that vaccines cause autism, sids, etc. And whether it can be proven that unvaccinated children don't get these.... I have a viewpoint on this but feel it's not enough for yhis conventional minded person; yet I feel with the right information, she may be swayed. Any suggestions?
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 26
2/15/13 at 7:07pm

I can honestly say that there is no evidence that comes close to convincing me that unvaccinated children don't suffer from autism or SIDS, and no reputable peer-reviewed studies linking vaccination to autism.

post #3 of 26
2/15/13 at 7:45pm
Thread Starter 
Well I think there are several causes and that vaccinations are just one of them. But a major one. And i think peer reviewed studies are highly over rated... but hoping someone can offer something that may help a bit.
post #4 of 26
2/16/13 at 10:36am
There are peer reviewed studies that show the opposite, and there is evidence that unvaccinated children DO suffer from those things, so I'm not sure what to tell you. You obviously can believe whatever you want, but no I don't think the kind of evidence you (or the person you're talking to) are looking exists.
post #5 of 26
2/16/13 at 3:38pm
Thread Starter 
No, I imagine not in the conventional journals.
post #6 of 26
2/16/13 at 3:51pm
Which are likely to be the only kind that will make an impression.
post #7 of 26
2/16/13 at 3:55pm
Thread Starter 
That's unfortunate.... the public is blinded.
post #8 of 26
2/16/13 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodoxmom View Post

That's unfortunate.... the public is blinded.

 

That's a fairly offensive thing to say.  Perhaps some of "the public" have eyes wide open, but have decided that scientific methods and the peer review process is more credible than the alternative offerings.

post #9 of 26
2/16/13 at 5:01pm
Thread Starter 
No offense intended... but I think it's unfair to the public that this information is withheld by the conventional journals and media so that they all have a chance to make an informed opinion.
post #10 of 26
2/16/13 at 5:07pm
That's one spin, I guess. What information is being withheld? The other spin is that mainstream science just doesn't support these claims. It's fine for you to believe what you want based on whatever evidence you want, but that's not how science actually works.
post #11 of 26
2/16/13 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodoxmom View Post

No offense intended... but I think it's unfair to the public that this information is withheld by the conventional journals and media so that they all have a chance to make an informed opinion.

 

It is unfortunate the the general population is being misled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That's one spin, I guess. What information is being withheld? The other spin is that mainstream science just doesn't support these claims. It's fine for you to believe what you want based on whatever evidence you want, but that's not how science actually works.

 

You can believe what you want too.

 

Here is Ben Goldacre's excellent TED talk on this subject of how science misleads, as he say's "We only hear about the fukes".

 

post #12 of 26
2/16/13 at 5:53pm
Thread Starter 
And with all due respect, you also have a choice to believe that mainstream science is accurate and provides you with all it actually knows.
I don't mean to be offensive here. I was upfront from the beginning with my beliefs that are founded on accurate information. If you disagree, there was no need to get involved with it. Im not sure why you bothered to respond when you did not have anything to offer to what my question was. Regardless, I wish you well as I continue believe and know my child is healthier due to my steadfast research and decisions. Im moving on from this discussion. Best regards.
post #13 of 26
2/16/13 at 5:55pm
Whether or not mainstream science is right is not the point. Science functions within a particular framework. This is not a secret.
post #14 of 26
2/16/13 at 6:48pm

The problems arise when you put all of your faith into a frequently faulty framework.

post #15 of 26
2/16/13 at 7:11pm
I dont put all y faith in science. I wouldnt say i put any faith in science. If it requires faith it's not science. I do use it as my primary basis for certain decision makin such as vaccination. What's the other option? Guessing?
post #16 of 26
2/16/13 at 11:34pm
There's a great quote credited to Neil de Grasse Tyson (American astronomer).

"The wonderful thing about science is its true whether you believe it or not".

Ben Goldacre's main point is that null results (ie. no significant reaction or health issue having been found) are often not published. Why don't you read some of his opinions about not vaccinating.

And to the OP - there's no need to get cross at people responding to your question. You asked for information to help sway someone from mainstream sources. We're all just pointing out there isn't any.

I'm glad your kids are healthy following your decision to not vaccinate. Given high levels of vaccination in the rest of the population they'll likely stay fine protected by everyone else from VPD.

Mine are also very healthy (and fully vaccinated).
post #17 of 26
2/17/13 at 1:04am

Here's Ben Goldacre's blog with the tag "vaccines": http://www.badscience.net/category/vaccines/ just to help out with my suggestion.

post #18 of 26
2/17/13 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Here's Ben Goldacre's blog with the tag "vaccines": http://www.badscience.net/category/vaccines/ just to help out with my suggestion.

The piece you linked to was really a criticism of the Daily Express' journalism. Maybe Ben Goldacre should look into the two HPV vaccines and the problems with them, there is plenty of information by independent researchers out there for there to be reason to be cautious about this vaccine especially as most of the research comes from the pharmaceutical companies that make them. Frankly, I get the impression that he hasn't had the bulls to get into the vaccine issue, residual programming maybe?

post #19 of 26
2/17/13 at 9:32am
She linked to everything from that blog with a certain tag, Mirzam.
post #20 of 26
2/17/13 at 11:46am
Thread Starter 

I'll make one last response to this and then I'm done....

There are studies.  Several people have sent them to me via private message and I appreciate that.  Apparently I posted in the wrong forum and I appreciate those of you that let me know that.  I realize that you have a differnt opinion and that is your choice.  I'm not cross....perhaps a little annoyed because I was simply looking for information with others that have my own point of view and seek and know of research from other sources not opinions of those that are of the opposite viewpoint.  I have what I needed.  Thanks to those that helped with my question.  Best wishes to all.