I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 6

[fruitfulmomma]

Hmm.. she co-authored a book with a medical doctor. I suspect *he* supports at least some of her ideology. 

By what evidence based medicine did you determine that you knew that Evan had celiac disease that was mistakenly diagnosed as autism?

[IdentityCrisisMama]

There are some flags for this thread. We are aware of how important it is to everyone that we moderate with consistency, so we'll discuss the issue of public figure name calling and get back to everyone. What we can all agree on is that our points can be made without name calling of any kind. While we are working on this issue, please refrain from calling anyone names and avoid quoting in case of a request for edits. TY. 

[prosciencemum]

Sadly it seems you can find an MD to support anything. Doesn't mean most (or even many) would agree.

PS. Jenny McCarthy has appeared both on Oprah and Larry King Live to talk about her child's autism.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy

[fruitfulmomma]

Sadly it seems you can find an MD to support anything. Doesn't mean most (or even many) would agree.

History has had no lack of doctors who were consider rebels by their colleagues, who have been proven right in the end. Where would we be without the work of Dr. Semmelweis and his attempts to show them that their filthy habits of touching infected cadavers and then birthing women without so much as washing their hands was killing these women?

[Rrrrrachel]

Also full of doctors who everyone thought were idiot whack jobs that ended up being . . . Idiot whack jobs.

[littlest birds]

Having been so disappointed so many times in the knowledge of doctors, the efficacy of prescribed medicines, and the protocols of medical institutions, the one thing I do know about humans is that we know a lot less about health in so many situations than we think we do. 

I think vaccines are just something for which we do not fully understand the complete effects on health.  I am not skeptical of their efficacy, which I observe is mixed but real.  If they can cause major damage occasionally, it's easy for me to see that it's likely there are cases of less extreme damage and if they do not present when or how we expect them we do not see them as provably connected.  This is likely to have a graphable curve if we ever are able to collect the data.  I think there are flaws in our ability to connect cause and effect.

There is a lot we don't know about vaccines, and a lot of exaggeration on both sides of the debate.  There are also real risks on both sides yet insufficient information to understand those risks fully along with institutions with a strong interest in influencing the public in one direction only.  I think either decision a parent ultimately makes is understandable. We have a blind spot about vaccines and in that blind spot there may be a great deal of risk or minor risks but it really is a "shot in the dark" for us all.  Some parents do not find the blind spot to be of significant concern but others have enough piecemeal information to understand a high risk potential in the areas of weak knowledge.  I fully respect others' decisions knowing that all of us are working with partial information and that some of the sources on both sides have less credibility than others. 

If a general distrust of the medical establishment or other institutions influences you, that is certainly understandable.  My own experiences have made me very distrustful, and I know that creates a bias, nevertheless my bias is based on real things and my skepticism legitimate.

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

Having been so disappointed so many times in the knowledge of doctors, the efficacy of prescribed medicines, and the protocols of medical institutions, the one thing I do know about humans is that we know a lot less about health in so many situations than we think we do. 

I think vaccines are just something for which we do not fully understand the complete effects on health.  I am not skeptical of their efficacy, which I observe is mixed but real.  If they can cause major damage occasionally, it's easy for me to see that it's likely there are cases of less extreme damage and if they do not present when or how we expect them we do not see them as provably connected.  This is likely to have a graphable curve if we ever are able to collect the data.  I think there are flaws in our ability to connect cause and effect.

There is a lot we don't know about vaccines, and a lot of exaggeration on both sides of the debate.  There are also real risks on both sides yet insufficient information to understand those risks fully along with institutions with a strong interest in influencing the public in one direction only.  I think either decision a parent ultimately makes is understandable. We have a blind spot about vaccines and in that blind spot there may be a great deal of risk or minor risks but it really is a "shot in the dark" for us all.  Some parents do not find the blind spot to be of significant concern but others have enough piecemeal information to understand a high risk potential in the areas of weak knowledge.  I fully respect others' decisions knowing that all of us are working with partial information and that some of the sources on both sides have less credibility than others. 

If a general distrust of the medical establishment or other institutions influences you, that is certainly understandable.  My own experiences have made me very distrustful, and I know that creates a bias, nevertheless my bias is based on real things and my skepticism legitimate.

The current state of my health & that of my children is the result of medical "science."  It was better for me to be born by surgery than vaginally because I was breech?  I doubt that.  It was better for me to be fed some concoction generated in a factory?  I know that's a lie.  It was better for me to receive massive amounts of antibiotics because I had many ear infections?  Doubtful.  Maybe eliminating dairy would have helped me, but my mother wasn't capable of thinking & I'm sure it didn't cross her mind that I had a problem w/ it as a baby, maybe I'd still have a problem w/ it.

Modern western medicine has caused us great harm; I didn't come from a heatlhy woman, my health was compromised again & again & I've passed my ill health onto my children.  My oldest was negatively effected by her vaccines.  I know my second child would be injured by them, likely autistic had he had any.  And my youngest, he'd probably be dead.  

I wish those that were so skeptical of those of us w/ children for whom vaccines just do not work nor are they worth the risk would direct some of that same level of scrutiny at the studies that come out and the recommednations being made by governments.  I hope that none of them have to learn the hard way, since it is the parents who will learn but the children who will really suffer from it.

Sus

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by JNajla 

But WHAT "research" does Jenny McCarthy cite that is credible? Whether YOU agree or not, she DID cause an unnecessary panic and it did cause a decline in vaccine rates and there were pockets of outbreaks occurring. I feel that she acted like a lunatic because she couldn't substantiate her claim, gave parents false hope, and provided false information in a VERY public forum. I've never met another healthcare professional who is in support of her "ideology". And it isn't because we're "paid or brainwashed" by "big pharma". It is because we practice medicine using evidenced based practice.

Please provide evidence that vaccinations rates fell as a direct result of Jenny McCarthy and that these falling rates have contributed to outbreaks of disease and please be specific about what disease in particular. 

There are plenty of parents out there of children who have been diagnosed with autism that are having great success in improving their children's symptoms by following gluten free and casein free diets. (no Rrrrachel I cannot ballpark "plenty" for you  ) Please see Taxi's post addressing this. This does NOT mean that all of these children were simply misdiagnosed. The only difference between these parents and Jenny McCarthy is that JM is an actress and spoke publicly about her experiences with her son. So if she is a lunatic than you are basically calling all those other parents out there who are SUCCESSFULLY helping their children lunatisc too. or no maybe you are just calling them misguided or misinformed because all of their kids must have been misdiagnosed too. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by JNajla 

With evidence based practice (creating clinical practice guidelines using evidence), there is a hierarchy in which the evidence is categorized. Each type of evidence is given more "weight" than others. Here is an example: http://ebp.lib.uic.edu/nursing/node/12

This evidence, research, expert testimonials, etc is what practitioners utilize when making clinical judgments. Basically, we use what we know works, because it is based on evidence. As you can see, testimony is a less credible means of determining efficacy. Anecdotal data isn't even on here. (Jenny McCarthy's testimony). While anecdotal reports are what initially may bring us to formulate a hypothesis, her claims and any others like hers have have never PROVEN CAUSATION. Like I've said before, I keep reading about people who've "done their research", but no one has provided a scholarly, evidenced based study that has proven a direct link or causation between vaccines and autism. The efficacy of vaccines has been proven for decades, and that is irrefutable. I want to protect my children just as anyone else does, but I'm not taking a chance on going by unsubstantiated claims. However, if there is true scientific evidence that clearly indicates a positive causation of autism and vaccines, then I would withhold them. (I have yet to see this).

 actually if this was irrefutable we wouldn't be here 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 actually if this was irrefutable we wouldn't be here 

Well the thing is it is. And I wonder why we're here constantly if I'm honest!

Going to become a favourite of mine I see: "The great thing about science is its true whether it not you believe it" (or agree with it).

[serenbat]

Quote:

"The great thing about science is its true whether it not you believe it"

a blanket remark like this comes off as empirical evidence at best

[prosciencemum]

Well yes - the complicated bit is the figuring out what's the right science in the first place!

Very good agreement on the idea that vaccines have saved millions of lives since they were invented though.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think empirical evidence means what you think it means.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I don't think empirical evidence means what you think it means.

don't worry, I'm well aware thank you 

[prosciencemum]

Could you explain what you think it means then, because I'm totally lost.

I think empirical evidence means evidence gathered by making measurements of something (e.g. Like measuring your height, or how fast your car is driving).

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Could you explain what you think it means then, because I'm totally lost.

I think empirical evidence means evidence gathered by making measurements of something (e.g. Like measuring your height, or how fast your car is driving).

The science of vaccines is like measuring your kids' heights.  Yes, you got a fairly good measurement for that day (the kid wiggled, so it could be off a bit), but the height keeps changing.  Microbes continue to evolve, the rate of natural immunity continues to change, the amount of wild disease in circulation keeps changing, the background levels of various toxins keep changing, and the recommended vaccination schedule keeps changing.  On top of all that, each person's circumstances and medical history are a little different.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 


Well the thing is it is. And I wonder why we're here constantly if I'm honest!

Going to become a favourite of mine I see: "The great thing about science is its true whether it not you believe it" (or agree with it).

Well the thing is it isn't which again is why there are debates about this going on all the time across many different mediums involving many different people (including medical professionals, scientists and researchers etc....) we could go back and forth until the cows come home .....if you wonder why we are here I'm surprised you even bother. Even I can grasp the notion that  highly educated, smart thoughtful parents can review the science and come to different conclusions - that's why we are here. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

 Even I can grasp the notion that  highly educated, smart thoughtful parents can review the science and come to different conclusions

and let us not forget scientist also come to different conclusions too!! The notion that science is alway true is clearly not always the case, this is proven over and over again to be the case-by scientist!

Quote:

I'm totally lost.

Sorry you are lost I guess it's a justification of your belief.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

and let us not forget scientist also come to different conclusions too!! The notion that science is alway true is clearly not always the case, this is proven over and over again to be the case-by scientist!




Sorry you are lost I guess it's a justification of your belief.

No it's always true - although we might not always know what the truth is.

And what?

[IdentityCrisisMama]

One of my favorite science quotes is, "Scientists often make the the mistake of assuming that everything they know is everything there is to know."