or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › new study on vaccination belief
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

new study on vaccination belief - Page 5

post #81 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post

One of the issues with vaccines is that in can get pretty tricky to debate. I find that debating GMO's is harder. There's a lot of propaganda out there that is plain false. However, it is of concern that Monsanto management has had seats on top of the FDA. More can be said about the topic (good and bad things about GMOs say) but again, this thread is not the place.

I've been called a "conspiracy theorist" (not in this thread) for pointing out rampant conflicts of interests in vaccine-related research and policy-making. That would be no different from calling you one for pointing out Monsanto's influence over the FDA. Not that you've said otherwise, but conflicts of interest are not conspiracy theories. They're facts.

By the way, (and I'm addressing everybody who ever discusses or debates vaccines), a conspiracy is little more than two or more people agreeing to do something bad. From toilet papering a neighbor's house to embezzling money from a bank, it happens every day and doesn't have to involve Moulder, Scully, Twin Towers, or UFOs.
post #82 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

It had nothing to do with discrediting by association...it's about discerning a person's ability to use logic and critical thinking. I don't know enough about GMOs to decide whether I think there is a legitimate concern. However, I DO know enough about 9/11 theories to have formed an opinion about the logic and critical thinking skills of anyone who thinks WTC7 was blown up with explosives, for example. I think that's why most people here are focusing on 9/11 instead of addressing he point about GMOs.

To assume that being wrong about 9-11 or the moon landing means that someone will be wrong in their criticisms of vaccines demonstrates an inability to use logic and critical thinking. So I hope that's not what you're doing.
post #83 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

To assume that being wrong about 9-11 or the moon landing means that someone will be wrong in their criticisms of vaccines demonstrates a patent inability to use logic and critical thinking. So I hope that's not what you're doing.


No,that is not what I'm doing. Criticisms of vaccinations are either valid or they are invalid...the messenger can't affect that. What I'm saying is that I'm less likely to seek information on a science-related topic from someone who I think has already demonstrated a lack of being able to draw a logical conclusion from the information available. I'm sure you would do the same.
post #84 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

 

I am really not interested in debating GMOs, the topic doesn't really interest me and I haven't done a huge amount of research on it. 

 

Having said that, there are recent studies that show that so far they are safe.  

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/review-10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/

 

"Review of 10 years of GMO research- no significant dangers" 

 

"In the world of scientific research, the absolute highest quality evidence are meta reviews, which are methods to contrast and combine results from a wide swath of peer-reviewed studies which may be useful in identifying patterns, sources of disagreement and other relationships. Since meta reviews combine the results from a larger number of studies, they can be more statistically significant.

 

 

In a meta-review recently published in a peer-reviewed, high impact factor journal, Critical Review of Biotechnology, where the authors collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took over 12 months to complete. The review covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them.

And their conclusion?

The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops. " 

post #85 of 139

I read your SkepticalRaptor link, and I'm not convinced nor impressed. I've also read other literature about the supposed safety of GMOs.  I've given thought to both sides of this, because it IS in fact an important issue.  Did you read my links or watch my video, even just a minute or two? I doubt it. I read your links, so it would be common courtesy for you to look at the info I've presented, if you want to be fair. Would you rather leave your decision up to SkepticalRaptor, or instead review both sides of the argument and then make a decision?

post #86 of 139
Right, that is what a BioTech journal would conclude.

However, please quote from primary sources. I have no issue with primary sources being quoted on here, they add to the discussion. However I do have an issue with links to 'Skeptic' sites, just as some others would have an issue with links to, for example 'Mercola'. I think we are clear that the 'skeptical movement' is incredibly non-objective, strongly partisan, with a position even on the existence of a higher power & may have totally hijacked the original meaning of the term 'skeptic'.

I am just unable to click on any link from a site like 'skepticalraptor' but I could probably click on a primary study.
post #87 of 139

This is the link from SkepticalRaptor:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041244

Quote:

We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus

The University of Perugia  research team selected the evidence from sources they felt were relevant.

Is there a list of every source they chose, and  who funded the research?  What am I to believe if these research papers were funded by the GM companies? After all, the companies are responsible for assuring the safety of their products (in the USA), not the FDA. Until I know more about the research and its sources, I can only assume the safety studies were conducted by the GM companies. Did this paper include any evidence from independent researchers? Is the study conducted by Arpad Pusztai included in the findings?

Quote:
 Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.

If you can help me find more information about the research included in the University of Perugia study, it would help out a lot. Otherwise, the study cited by SkepticalRaptor is questionable.

post #88 of 139

Sigh.....opening up to ridicule here......

I just found more GMO info, but sadly, it is on Mercola's site. hide.gif However, as much as I dislike SkepticalRaptor, I did read that link. Would it be too much to ask for you to look at the info on Mercola? Before you answer, you should know that he interviewed Dr. Huber.

Quote:
 

Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.

His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.

His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx

 

I'll try to find more info from Dr. Huber that is not on Mercola, but this is all I have for now.

post #89 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post

No,that is not what I'm doing. Criticisms of vaccinations are either valid or they are invalid...the messenger can't affect that. What I'm saying is that I'm less likely to seek information on a science-related topic from someone who I think has already demonstrated a lack of being able to draw a logical conclusion from the information available. I'm sure you would do the same.


Honestly, I don't turn to any one individual to make my vaccine decisions. I turn to the sources that they cite, if any, and then analyze those sources and try to find competing ones. If BeckyBird cites solid supporting evidence on something vaccine-related, I could care less what her views on 9-11 are. I've heard poor arguments from both vaccine critics and the pro-compliance camp. (Long story, but I no longer say "pro-vaccine") But I look at the arguments, not on the tangential beliefs of the people making them.

Voices for Vaccines put together a schmancy little meme about this junk study for their Facebook page. They must think they've got a real winner with this one. But I expect more from people who consider themselves "skeptics" and "logical." Genuinely logical people evaluate arguments and not the people making them.

By the way, the moon landing happened. Al Quaeda carried out the 9-11 attacks. Global warming is happening, and human activity is exacerbating it. And for anyone wondering, the 1978 Jonestown massacre involved Flavorade, not Kool-Aid. Fortunately, I don't drink either. winky.gif
post #90 of 139

@Beckybird  I linked from the skeptical raptor because those are the forum rules when you quote something from a blog. He has many other posts on GMO foods that are much better, that one was just the most recent.  I wasn't pressuring anyone to read it.   I skimmed the Mercola article and also wasn't impressed. 

 

"I'll try to find more info from Dr. Huber that is not on Mercola, but this is all I have for now."  There is information about him, just not flattering information. He hasn't published a single peer reviewed paper substantiating his claims (getting some dejavu here...) and his finding have been criticized by many many experts in the field.  

 

"Extraordinary Claims...require extraordinary evidence" http://www.biofortified.org/2011/02/extraordinary-claims…-require-extraordinary-evidence/  This is a good breakdown of some of his claims for those that are interested. 

 

@Turquesa "Voices for Vaccines put together a schmancy little meme about this junk study for their Facebook page. They must think they've got a real winner with this one." 

 

You mean this? 

 

 

Yeah it's been making the rounds :) 

 

"I've heard poor arguments from both vaccine critics and the pro-compliance camp. (Long story, but I no longer say "pro-vaccine") "

 

I'd love to hear that story. 

 

Anyway, I am not going to debate this further, it's futile just as I expected it would be.  Any source is "biased" and won't be accepted by those who have already come to the conclusion that GMOs are unsafe.   This topic really just does not interest me at all, to be honest.  I have things I would rather be doing with my time than researching information about GMOs. 

post #91 of 139
Turquesa:

"Genuinely logical people evaluate arguments and not the people making them."

Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!

Teacozy:

Ya just had to post that insulting meme even though there was no real reason to do so. Seriously, do you actually think that sort of crap is helpful? I'm sure whoever created that meme really had "the children" in mind... The posting of that just solidified what I have been saying is the intent of this whole thread: to discredit through mockery.

Barf.
post #92 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Teacozy:

Ya just had to post that insulting meme even though there was no real reason to do so. Seriously, do you actually think that sort of crap is helpful? I'm sure whoever created that meme really had "the children" in mind... The posting of that just solidified what I have been saying is the intent of this whole thread: to discredit through mockery.

Barf.

 

Oh, but the memes on the front page of this thread calling PVers sheep was super helpful right? Why not call out those memes?  Also, I'm not the one who brought the moon walk meme up.  

post #93 of 139
The idea that GMOs = unsafe is an 'extraordinary claim' really betrays next to no knowledge of the transgenic modification process, RoundUp, genetic contamination, etc.

Really the *precautionary principle* would state that before being introduced wholesale into the infant formula supply, something should be proven safe *beyond a shadow of a doubt*.
post #94 of 139
Teacozy:

I don't like those memes either, but to be honest after being called crazy (which is the purpose of this thread) I am kinda feeling more lenient toward my "side". This whole thread is gross. And by the way, pointing out another's wrong does not make you right. Another case of Logic 101.

Surely you can come up with a better argument than "they started it"...
post #95 of 139
And doesn't the picture on the VfV memo just *look fake* to anyone else? I have no position on the Moon landing, but I don't put anything past the government & era that detonated 254 atomic bombs on their own soil or deforested an entire nation with Agent Orange! If there's a Gov I trust less than say, your average Gov of today, it would be the Gov of 1945-1975 USA.
post #96 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

And doesn't the picture on the VfV memo just *look fake* to anyone else? I have no position on the Moon landing, but I don't put anything past the government & era that detonated 254 atomic bombs on their own soil or deforested an entire nation with Agent Orange! If there's a Gov I trust less than say, your average Gov of today, it would be the Gov of 1945-1975 USA.

I think I see a "Welcome to New Mexico" sign in the background LOL. Seriously, though, while I do believe we landed on the moon I am not ignorant to the lengths some powers that be will go to harm others for their benefit. It happens.
post #97 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Teacozy:

I don't like those memes either, but to be honest after being called crazy (which is the purpose of this thread) I am kinda feeling more lenient toward my "side". This whole thread is gross. And by the way, pointing out another's wrong does not make you right. Another case of Logic 101.

Surely you can come up with a better argument than "they started it"...

 

My argument isn't "they started it".  I was questioning why you would call out one meme and not the others.The meme I posted was 1) brought up by someone on "your side" and 2) relevant to the thread at least. 

post #98 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

My argument isn't "they started it".  I was questioning why you would call out one meme and not the others.  At least the meme I posted was 1) brought up by someone on "your side" and 2) relevant to the thread. 

Well that we can agree on. In fact, as I've been saying, it illustrates very clearly the WHOLE POINT of the thread. To generalize a whole group of people into the "crazy" category. Very helpful to the children. Yes, very helpful indeed...
post #99 of 139

@Dina 

 

"The idea that GMOs = unsafe is an 'extraordinary claim' really betrays next to no knowledge of the transgenic modification process, RoundUp, genetic contamination, etc." 

 

If he is so sure they are unsafe then why doesn't he publish any of his evidence? 

 

You could have the most brilliant brain surgeon in the world claim that carrots cause brain cancer but until he performs studies and has them peer reviewed in a medical journal his assertions are just that, assertions. Not evidence. 

post #100 of 139
And just for the record, I am not on a "side". I used that word because that's the way this debate always ends up being fought on this board. The only side I'm on is the side of parents and children who wish to do what's best for their families without suffering ridicule and oppression. My BFF is a vaxer, and I fully support her right to do so. I support the right for vaxxing parents to have a place on this forum and to be heard. And I support my right to make my own choices for my family.

I will *never* support threads like this with an obvious intent to mock and divide. Aren't we all parents? Don't we all want what's best? I assure you I am not nutso. I'm just a mom trying to do my best. I do not appreciate being mocked. It is not helpful and changes nothing while children and families continue to suffer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › new study on vaccination belief