or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Amy Parker's hit piece, "Growing Up Unvaccinated," deconstructed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amy Parker's hit piece, "Growing Up Unvaccinated," deconstructed. - Page 7

post #121 of 146
Quote:
 As far as I am aware MMR was made available in 1963.  

 

Quote:

 

Looks like it was the measles-only vax that was available in 1968.

 

 

And for our newcomers, please be sure to take a look at the forum guidelines - http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines

 

Quote:
I'm Not Vaccinating - This is a support-only forum for those not or those seriously considering not vaccinating. Here we host discussion of issues that arise when choosing to not vaccinate and sharing of resources and information that are related to the no-vax decision. Members who are vaccinating should not post here to debate or argue accuracy or opinion of things posted. 

 

 

 

post #122 of 146

The single measles vaccine was introduced into the UK in 1968, MMR in 1988. Single measles vaccine was introduced into the US in 1963, but it was a live virus that was administered with measles immunoglobulin because it was so reactive. The attenuated live vaccine was introduced in 1968. There was no MMR vaccine in 1963 in any country. The MMR vaccine became available in the US in 1971.

post #123 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmhmhmhm View Post

Hi taximom4 - I went to that link you used to source your statement that MMR was not available in the UK until 1998; and that page says nothing of the sort, so I'm wondering where you got that information.  As far as I am aware MMR was made available in 1963.  The NHS link you posted http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx says that in 1998 a paper was written by Andrew Wakefield that created doubts and controversy around the MMR vaccine.  And then it says that this paper was later completely discredited and Wakefield no longer a doctor in the UK.  In 2010, health experts criticized media reporting of the MMR-autism controversy for triggering a decline in vaccination rates.  
Before publication of Wakefield's findings, the inoculation rate for MMR in the UK was 92%; after publication, the rate dropped to below 80%. In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases, with 2 confirmed deaths.  http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/autism/%E2%80%9Cparanoia-strikes-deep%E2%80%9D-mmr-vaccine-and-autism


I understand the worry about not properly understood vaccinations for young children, but I also fear the misunderstanding and false proliferation of side effects caused by vaccines that turn out to be false and cost lives.  

Anyways I'd still like to know where you sourced your information that the MMR vaccine was not available in the UK until 1998.  

Hi, hmhmhmhm, welcome to the forum!

Perhaps you skipped around when you went to the link I posted? It says very clearly, "Since the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988..." in the fourth paragraph. I'm wondering why you think the MMR was available in 1963, as you didn't post a source for that.

Oh, and you got my name wrong, too.
post #124 of 146
It's not strange to wait 6 months re: HPV. Pre-cancerous cells can take many, many years to transition to cancer and often spontaneously resolve. They often do a repeat pap/wait and see approach before more invasive biopsies or removal of cells.
post #125 of 146
post #126 of 146
Quote:

Thanks for that! 

post #127 of 146

RE: fluoride.

 

Ever see the huge astronaut-like suit that a water worker wears when fluoride is put into the water? It was put in the press before LA voted to refuse fluoride in its water in 1960s. I will look in my books for it.

post #128 of 146

Not fluoride, farming GMOs

 

post #129 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post

RE: fluoride.

Ever see the huge astronaut-like suit that a water worker wears when fluoride is put into the water? It was put in the press before LA voted to refuse fluoride in its water in 1960s. I will look in my books for it.

LA doesn't have fluoridated water? Or did they cave in at a later date?
post #130 of 146

In 1996, Governor Pete Wilson-R, mandated fluoride in all communities statewide that have 100,000 or more residents. So Los Angeles has fluoride in its water. I helped circulate a petition at the time, but obviously it went no where. This article seems to be all over the place about when LA started to fluoridate, but it is currently fluoridated. 

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/22/local/me-fluoride22

 

The first city in the world to fluoridate I believe was Grand Rapids, MI. 

I seem to recall that cancer rates are highest in  cities where the water has been fluoridated for the  longest time. 

And I know for sure that dentists are not moving out of Grand Rapids, MI.

post #131 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sukhada View Post

It's not strange to wait 6 months re: HPV. Pre-cancerous cells can take many, many years to transition to cancer and often spontaneously resolve. They often do a repeat pap/wait and see approach before more invasive biopsies or removal of cells.

 

You are right. I found a few sites saying exactly that. Here is one:  http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/cervical/pathology-and-staging/precancerous-conditions/?region=on

 

However, her story still doesn't ring true.  She says that she was diagnosed with precancerous HPV:  "In my twenties I got precancerous HPV and spent 6 months of my life wondering how I was going to tell my two children under the age of 7 that mummy might have cancer before it was safely removed."

 

​Now, if they knew that she had a "precancerous HPV infection," why would they wait 6 months to see if it would resolve or not? Is she confusing genital warts with precancerous lesions?  Or did her doctors confuse the two?  I ask because most HPV infections do not lead to cancer.

post #132 of 146

Yes and yes!  I had a facebook friend throw the "Growing Up Unvaccinated" article out there and noticed all of the inconsistencies, but deemed it pointless to argue with her about the consistencies given she (and her faithful "likers") wouldn't know the first thing about what this author claimed to live.  THANK YOU for typing up a valid response on it.  THANK YOU for working to put a stop on ignorant assumptions about the motives behind "anti-vaxers".  I am sure you have many haters for writing this, but know that your utilitarian ways are appreciated by many!  Cheers

post #133 of 146

Great work!

 

Saw this on my news feed a few times, but never read it. I'm finding a lot more propaganda out there these days. It's brewing. The big guys are at work trying to pit pro-vaxers and non-vaxers against each other. Create fear so we'll give up our health freedoms just like we gave up  our privacy freedoms after 911. Sick world.

post #134 of 146
Quote:
 ....wouldn't know the first thing about what this author claimed to live. ...

I grew up never vaccinated in the polio era and I know what this author claimed to live is a BIG FAT LIE.

 

And, welcome, dterpstra, to mdc and to the I Am NOT vaccinating forum.

post #135 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloebelle View Post
 

Great work!

 

Saw this on my news feed a few times, but never read it. I'm finding a lot more propaganda out there these days. It's brewing. The big guys are at work trying to pit pro-vaxers and non-vaxers against each other. Create fear so we'll give up our health freedoms just like we gave up  our privacy freedoms after 911. Sick world.

 

Yes, you are right, there is an absolute firestorm of propaganda out there these days. It's like they've declared war on all independent thought.

post #136 of 146

In fact, very nice article ! So well said !

 

Congratulations... :-)

post #137 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-LucS View Post

In fact, very nice article ! So well said !

Congratulations... :-)

Thank you, Jean-LucS, and welcome to the forum!
post #138 of 146
I didn't learn anything from this. I was looking for an alternative view to Amy Parker's piece. But all I found was someone talking about it in bold letters. As if that's supposed to mean anything. "Here now look at this." "Now take it even further." This has no value or meaning. It provides no contrast to Parker's piece at all.

I also saw someone quote the forum guidelines about this being a "support only" forum. Are the people here suffering through diseases or depression and is that why they need support only? How can anyone get an educated opinion if they only hear one side? I'm sceptical of everything, vaccines and doctors' opinions included. However, I'm more sceptical of anyone or any place that preaches one side only.

 

post #139 of 146
Quote:
I also saw someone quote the forum guidelines about this being a "support only" forum. Are the people here suffering through diseases or depression and is that why they need support only? How can anyone get an educated opinion if they only hear one side? I'm sceptical of everything, vaccines and doctors' opinions included. However, I'm more sceptical of anyone or any place that preaches one side only.

This is a sub-forum. There are several other forums with different view points presented. Feel free to browse them if you are not finding what you need here - http://www.mothering.com/community/f/47/vaccinations

post #140 of 146
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkeptic View Post
I didn't learn anything from this. I was looking for an alternative view to Amy Parker's piece. But all I found was someone talking about it in bold letters. As if that's supposed to mean anything. "Here now look at this." "Now take it even further." This has no value or meaning. It provides no contrast to Parker's piece at all.

I also saw someone quote the forum guidelines about this being a "support only" forum. Are the people here suffering through diseases or depression and is that why they need support only? How can anyone get an educated opinion if they only hear one side? I'm sceptical of everything, vaccines and doctors' opinions included. However, I'm more sceptical of anyone or any place that preaches one side only.

 

 

Welcome to the forum, TheSkeptic.

 

You need to be able to read and understand beyond simply recognizing which letters are bolded.


The sentences written in bolded font are an explanation of the tactics Amy Parker used in her attempt to take down vaccine critics (and we're not even discussing why someone would find it necessary to "take down" critics rather than coming up with a valid answer to the criticisms).

The quotes immediately following those sentences demonstrate the point.

The "take it even further" illustrated the pattern she employed, where, for every point she made (even if it was in error), she tried to make it seem stronger by giving a second, grossly exaggerated, even completely unrealistic example.

 

Perhaps you didn't read the 2"edited to add" sections, each separated by a line of asterisks.  The first ETA section points out 9 fairly major errors or inconsistencies in Amy Parker's article.   Since her piece has so many obvious errors and inconsistencies, contrast to her piece is hardly necessary.

 

As fruitfulmomma pointed out, you are welcome to browse other forums if you are not finding what you need here.  You are also welcome to write your own contrast piece to Amy Parker's.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Amy Parker's hit piece, "Growing Up Unvaccinated," deconstructed.