or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating? - Page 6

post #101 of 119

The AAP and the ACIP both have SERIOUS and I mean SERIOUS Conflicts of Interest. As well as their own hides & paradigm to protect. The consensus is actually clear about whether Conflicts of Interest affect human behavior. The science there is so clear: they absolutely and always DO influence human behavior.

 

If I were a mother in Dr. Samelweiss' time, I would have much rather had him as my physican than the vast majority who rejected germ theory. Because if I were Dr. S's patient I wouldn't have died from Purpureal Sepsis (Childbed Fever). In history, a few lone wolves have ALWAYS led the way, with the pack and certainly beurecrats (sp) being dragged behind. 

post #102 of 119

also AAP also had the pesky female circ problem in 2010 but they revised themselves

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

also AAP also had the pesky female circ problem in 2010 but they revised themselves

???
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Of course groups can be in error. I just think its less likely. Tobacco companies had their experts but they did NOT have the scientific consensus on their side.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


???

you didn't know?

 

 

they were for it before the were against it ~ it's just a little "nick"!

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?_r=0

 

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/AAP.retracts.female.genital.cutting/index.html

 

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral "pricking" procedure.

"We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world," said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.

post #106 of 119

Wow, the words "harmless" and "clitoral pricking" should not be in the same sentence!  Harmless?

post #107 of 119

The AAP revealed themselves then (and in their recent reversal on Circ where they endorse 3rd party payment) to be basically nothing more than a Trade Group that represents the financial interests of its members.

post #108 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Have you actually fact checked his various claims, or did you just role with it?  There are a lot of misleading statements, if not outright falsehoods.  Not at all surprised we got different things out of it, though :)

 

I do think he tries to take a more moderate view and ultimately supports parental choice.  I certainly wouldn't call him vehemently anti vax, either.  I think he's ultimately pro business, and he was one of the first to realize there was money to be made on this issue.

Please enlighten us. Which statements are misleading and which are falsehoods. Please be specific.

post #109 of 119

The way he presents the risks of the various diseases and uses VAERS is completely misleading, for one.  The research he presents on aluminum.  That's just off the top of my head.  We've been through all this before.  

post #110 of 119

Not to mention the completely baseless claim that his alternative schedule is any safer. It's baked by zero research or even credible scientific theory.

post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The way he presents the risks of the various diseases and uses VAERS is completely misleading, for one.  The research he presents on aluminum.  That's just off the top of my head.  We've been through all this before.  

Ok doesn't really answer my question but I get that's just off the top of your head and not specific at all and I also get you don't want to discuss it.... I hadn't been though this before...perhaps you could link to a previous thread about how misinformed Dr. Bob is??

post #112 of 119
First, to insinuate Dr Bob Sears is becoming a millionaire off ONE reasonably priced BOOK is patently false. Also his alternative schedule is based on Aluminum & it should be up to each parent to decide where they stand on the Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants. He is the only one who even gives us anything resembling a choice.

I love it when people say 'we shouldn't use VAERS data'. Um it is the largest data set available & is still under inclusive. Also the infamous Incredible Hulk incident proved that the database is actually tightly monitored & that fallacious reports are swiftly investigated.
post #113 of 119
And let's all remember that Dr. Sears has a Column on MDC & is a valuable contributor here. If you are so convinced his claims are baseless, I would advise against frequenting a Message Board which endorses his voice & work!
post #114 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 I also get you don't want to discuss it.... I hadn't been though this before...perhaps you could link to a previous thread about how misinformed Dr. Bob is??

Fwiw,  I either missed it or do not remember it…..

 

The only thing I remeber Rachel saying when quizzed on why she did not like him was referring to some skeptic site.

 

ETA:  I am not trying to put you on the spot, Rachel.  You do say you dislike Dr. Sears a far bit, and if you want to say it, it would be nice to back it up with why on a thread one day.  It does not have to be today.  My 2 cents. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/2/13 at 11:38am
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Not to mention the completely baseless claim that his alternative schedule is any safer. It's baked by zero research or even credible scientific theory.

While neither agreeing nor disagreeing… I will say not all vaccine issues are related to science. 

 

His alternative schedule offers parents a template for another option.  I don't get why anyone would be against parental choice.  The risk of one size fits all schedules and no choice is that parents might go non-vax (which is fine with me).  

post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

While neither agreeing nor disagreeing… I will say not all vaccine issues are related to science. 


Well that says it all.

I'll try to come up with a more comprehensive post later. There is a great post on I think sciencebasedmedicine.org that fact checks the book. That's probably what I linked before.

Dinah he's making money off a lot more than just the book. It's not about using or not using VAERS, it's about how you use it. Well fraudulent reports might get weeded out, by nature there's NO effort made to distinguish between events due to random chance and actual causation.
post #117 of 119

Right and that is EXACTLY how it should be: in a SCIENCE BASED STUDY, all adverse effects are reported & published in the research, and the frequency is what determines causation. There is never a tighter standard applied to Causation than in Vax Spin. I absolutely demand that vaccines be held to the same standard as other pharmaceuticals. It is not scientific to brush side effects off as 'coincidences' but Medical Professionals in the US do this to parents all day every day. Very little even makes it into VAERS.

 

Science Based Medicine (AKA Orac) is not a valid source here. Unless you want to consider Mercola a valid source. Because David Gorski is not one iota more 'middle of the road' or 'moderate' than Mercola. So just Let me Know, because the next time Gorski is referenced as anything resembling valid, it will be the Kirby, Fischer, Mercola, Crosby, Evidence of Harm hour here on MDC!

post #118 of 119

And do tell, what other money is he making? He runs a medical practice, one that does not bill insurance, which imposes an inherent limitation on his patient load. When I was in SoCal last, he was accepting new patients, which means he was NOT booked to capacity. He has one book. He doesn't do a lot of public speaking, and this MDC gig can't be very lucrative @ all.

 

To say that Paul Offit (who speaks TONS and makes plenty of other work) does not have a COI but Dr. Sears does, is frankly just laughable.

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


 Well fraudulent reports might get weeded out, by nature there's NO effort made to distinguish between events due to random chance and actual causation.

GREAT POINT!  

There is absolutely NO effort by the vaccine manufacturers to distinguish between events due to random chance (like, not getting flu symptoms because one's immune system was actually functioning properly) and actual causation (like, they SAY that the flu shot kept you from getting the flu when you wouldn't have gotten it anyway).

 

But somehow, none of the pharma-directed fraudulent reports of vaccine safety/efficacy got weeded out. How mysterious....

 

You can read more about the pharma-directed fraudulent reports of vaccine safety/efficacy at www.fourteenstudies.org

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating?