or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 5

post #81 of 261
I'm a pediatric clinical nurse specialist. I'm well aware of the screening techniques and diagnostic criteria for ASDs. I'm not sure if that last comment was directed at me.
post #82 of 261
Jenny McCarthy is a lunatic because she started a FRENZY of anti-vaccine propaganda and scared parents unnecessarily. It was ridiculous.
post #83 of 261
I also NEVER said that "autism is caused by celiac disease". I simply said that there is research that indicates that SOME autism cases may be misdiagnosed, and celiac disease may be a possible cause. Perhaps you should reread what people say before you fly off the handle.
post #84 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by JNajla View Post

Jenny McCarthy is a lunatic because she started a FRENZY of anti-vaccine propaganda and scared parents unnecessarily. It was ridiculous.

Wow, you give Jenny McCarthy a lot of credit.biglaugh.gif Is is so incredulous that intelligent, thinking parents choose not to vaccinate because they have spent hours researching the subject, and continue to research it on a daily basis. Jenny McCarthy had absolutely no influence on my decision whatsoever. 

 

You are new to posting on this board, and just so you know, I have yet to read anything in your posts which isn't same old vaccine propaganda that non-vaxing parents get all the time. I speaking for myself, I immune now thank goodness.

post #85 of 261
I personally couldn't care less if you choose to vaccinate your children or not. That is your choice as a parent. I certainly am not trying to persuade anyone in any direction. My biggest issue is when people dem vaccines "toxic" but then feed their children toxic food, use plastic foodware, have furniture full of flame reardants, use toxic cleaning and personal care products (most women on this thread do not fall into that category).
post #86 of 261
It's really inflammatory to call what someone has to say propaganda. Just putting that out there because it seems to come up a lot. Is it so unreasonable that people who choose to vaccinate have done many hours of research and continue to research?
post #87 of 261

Does that go both ways Rachel? JN just used the same phrase to describe the anti-vax position.

post #88 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's really inflammatory to call what someone has to say propaganda. Just putting that out there because it seems to come up a lot. Is it so unreasonable that people who choose to vaccinate have done many hours of research and continue to research?


It's also inflammatory to call people "conspiracy theorists" if they are skeptical. That term also comes up a lot around here.

post #89 of 261
Quote:
My biggest issue is when people dem vaccines "toxic" but then feed their children toxic food, use plastic foodware, have furniture full of flame reardants, use toxic cleaning and personal care products (most women on this thread do not fall into that category).

what about the people that don't have those things and don't do those things!?

 

it is so unfair to lump all together and certainly not at all true-insultiing 

post #90 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by JNajla View Post

I personally couldn't care less if you choose to vaccinate your children or not. That is your choice as a parent. I certainly am not trying to persuade anyone in any direction. My biggest issue is when people dem vaccines "toxic" but then feed their children toxic food, use plastic foodware, have furniture full of flame reardants, use toxic cleaning and personal care products (most women on this thread do not fall into that category).

Some people have to choose their battles & choose what they can eliminate (like vaccines), use less of (like plastic foodware) and not use at all (like toxic cleaning & personal care products).  I do not know how to nor would I likely have the money to purchase all things that fall into the categories you have mentioned, especially the "furniture full of flame retardants."  I've gotten around that by getting 2nd hand stuff & just going w/o.  But, you never know someone's full story so IMO to have an issue w/ someone no matter what they do (since the only person *you* can control is *yourself*), seems like a waste of energy to me.

 

Sus

post #91 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


It's also inflammatory to call people "conspiracy theorists" if they are skeptical. That term also comes up a lot around here.

So two wrongs make a right? I agree calling someone a conspiracy theorist is just pushing buttons and trying to get their goat. And when someone does that they are rightly jumped on for it.

Fruitful mama, yes, it goes both ways. It's an inflammatory statement regardless if who says it. I admit I missed it used the first time until I went back and looked, though. It's just a way to dismiss someone's point without having to say anything substantive.
post #92 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's really inflammatory to call what someone has to say propaganda. 

Sorry, but it's not inflammatory at all.  From dictionary.reference.com:

 

 

prop·a·gan·da

  [prop-uh-gan-duh]  Show IPA
noun
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement,institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
post #93 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


So two wrongs make a right? I agree calling someone a conspiracy theorist is just pushing buttons and trying to get their goat. And when someone does that they are rightly jumped on for it.

 

 

 

Your post from 5/3/12:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It is a conspiracy theory, you can take it as pejorative if you want, but that's what it is. It's a theory that there is a conspiracy to conceal cases of vaccine preventable diseases by calling them something else. It's not worth responding to further, because the nature of conspiracy theories is that all evidence to the contrary is part of the conspiracy.
 

There were several more references to conspiracy theories in your posts, but you edited them as requested when they were flagged for violating MDC policy.

 

In this arena, calling someone's point a "conspiracy theory" is, for all practical purposes, the same as labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist; in other words, it's just pushing buttons and trying to get their goat.  Your own words, in fact.

post #94 of 261
Wow Taximom- you're very good at searching old posts here (even ones you say are deleted).

Perhaps Rrrrrachels opinion has changed slightly in the last 6 months, or you're taking her quote out of context.

What was the point of this thread again?
post #95 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Does that go both ways Rachel? JN just used the same phrase to describe the anti-vax position.

There was a subtle difference. JN called what Jenny McCarthy spreads on Oprah (etc) anti vaccine propaganda. Mirzam said she hadn't read anything JN has posted which wasn't "vaccine industry spread propaganda".

Interesting word propaganda. Thanks for the dictionary definition Taximom. Whatever the definition though it brings to mind the spreading of deliberate misinformation or half truths by large well funded bodies in order to promote their agenda.

Applying that to opinions of MDC mothers posting on either side if this debate then does seem to me to be sailing quite close to the User agreement (in which we agree to respect each others well researched opinions).

Shall we move on?

Also - welcome to mothering JN. Join us on Mindful vaccination board if you want a break from the rigorous debate. smile.gif
post #96 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Your post from 5/3/12:


There were several more references to conspiracy theories in your posts, but you edited them as requested when they were flagged for violating MDC policy.

In this arena, calling someone's point a "conspiracy theory" is, for all practical purposes, the same as labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist; in other words, it's just pushing buttons and trying to get their goat.  Your own words, in fact.

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is NOT the same as calling a particular claim a conspiracy theory. One is an objective classification of a theory or belief, and another is a pejorative comment about a person.

Either way, I got jumped on for saying that, so it obviously was button pushing, intentional or not. In the interest of trying to get somewhere I've avoided saying it since.
post #97 of 261
Again though bringing it back to THIS post. where exactly is the research in this blog post? Ithe links to all the research the blog author has done are facebook, blog posts and a trade organization. Spending hours researchiing trade organizations, blogs, and facebook in my opinion is worse that making your decision doing no research at all.

I have done a lot of research on many decisions for parenting, from breasfeeding, to discipliine, to sleeping arangements, to diet. None of it involved blogs or facebook. NO I am not suggesting that everyone saying they have researched has done this, but that is the totality of the post in this thread "research" provided!

And honestly propoganda isn't just one sided. It seems that if you choose to vaccinate you are told you have "fallen for propoganda" Perhaps the trade organization, supplement salesmen, blog authors and facebook posters are also peddling propoganda to not vaccinate? Propoganda is essentially communication that is more for the person saying it or putting it out there than the consumer. If you are trying to get me to buy into your cause (or purchase your product whether that be a vaccine or a supplement)anything you are putting out is propoganda..
post #98 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post

Does that go both ways Rachel? JN just used the same phrase to describe the anti-vax position.

There was a subtle difference. JN called what Jenny McCarthy spreads on Oprah (etc) anti vaccine propaganda. Mirzam said she hadn't read anything JN has posted which wasn't "vaccine industry spread propaganda".

Interesting word propaganda. Thanks for the dictionary definition Taximom. Whatever the definition though it brings to mind the spreading of deliberate misinformation or half truths by large well funded bodies in order to promote their agenda.

Applying that to opinions of MDC mothers posting on either side if this debate then does seem to me to be sailing quite close to the User agreement (in which we agree to respect each others well researched opinions).

Shall we move on?

Also - welcome to mothering JN. Join us on Mindful vaccination board if you want a break from the rigorous debate. smile.gif

JNajla called Jenny McCarthy a lunatic which is a personal attack, which I believe is a UA violation even on this forum.

 

For those that want to make their own minds up whether it is propaganda or not here is Jenny McCarthy and JB Handley on the Doctors (it wasn't Oprah)

 

 

post #99 of 261
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.
post #100 of 261
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).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research!