or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Confused about the debate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confused about the debate - Page 11

post #201 of 244

Sometimes I find it very helpful to go back and look at posts, in order of their appearance.  This helps me better understand thought processes and patterns.  So, Rexeldexel, I decided to look at yours.  

See, it struck me as very odd that you should come on the forum claiming confusion, but then seem to have an agenda to follow. But with so many posts from so many members here, it can get rather difficult to follow one person's posts.  So I've collected several of yours here, in order of appearance.

 

 

The first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I certainly do not mean any offence, I am genuinely interested in learning more. I come from a position of being raised by a consultant paedeatrician and having studied a degree in biological science myself. So many of the posts I've read are anecdotal and based more on feelings than peer reviewed papers or statistical analysis that I'm left baffled. The non-vaccinators here seem to be intelligent people. You can all spell! So what information am I missing here?

 

Do any of the non-vaccinators on this thread have a scientific education?

 

Are most here American? I'm led to believe that in America Evolution is an optional part of the science curriculum, which makes me wonder about the general quality of biological study in the country.

 

 

An hour later:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I'm so confused by all of this.

 

Do any of the non-vaxers on this thread have a scientific education?

 

Are most here American? I'm led to believe that in America Evolution is an optional part of the science curriculum, which makes me wonder about the general quality of biological study in the country.

 

 

Another hour later, you bring up Wakefield, whom nobody else had mentioned:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

The man who wrote a paper linking autism to vaccination was completely discredited because there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

 

 

Ok, in 3 short posts, you went from "confused" to "so confused" to announcing that THE man who linked autism to vaccination was discredited. (I'm being sarcastic here, as Wakefield's paper specifically stated, "We have not proved a causal association between autism and MMR vaccination." Most vaccine critics do not rely on Wakefield for their information, as there are quite a few studies that were not retracted.) Looks to me like you weren't confused at all, but had an agenda (and maybe a timeframe).

You COMPLETELY ignored post #58, which address the errors in what you sayabout Wakefield, but throws in "all the science I ever learned informs me that the risks are minimal and the dangers of not doing so are very real."  That implies that the risks are not very real, doesn't it?  And then you go back to evolution, and implies that we are struggling to understand immunity and disease, and have not grown up to make informed decisions about vaccinations.  Condescending, insulting, AND parroting the party line.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

I want to understand why people are against vaccination as all the science I ever learned informs me that the risks are minimal and the dangers of not doing so are very real. I thought perhaps the difference was cultural or educational. This is why I asked if most people here were American. I had watched documentaries and seen news articles previously that said evolution was not taught at some american schools. Is evolution an essential part of the curriculum in your state too? 

 

If children aren't taught about evolution they will struggle to understand immunity and disease, so how would they grow up to make informed decisions about vaccinations?

 

 

Suddenly, you are now an expert on autism, and state that you would rather your daughter became autistic than dead--as though those are the only possible options.   you then throw in an implication that the unvaccinated or relying on the herd immunity and endangering the health of others.  This sounds suspiciously like the formula in Amy Parker's article, doesn't it?

You tell us that we are considered hysterical and uneducated by pro-vaxers, and then complain that you have been insulted here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

Yes I am a parent. If there is a risk of autism (which isn't conclusive despite years of research) I would rather my daughter became autistic than dead. Many autistic people live happy fulfilled lives but dead children are dead. I would also not want to rely on the immunisation of the rest of the population to protect my daughter. If my daughter caught a preventable disease and recovered without a problem how could I feel content with myself that she had endangered the health of others who may not have fared so well? Effective vaccination is a cooperative system. 

 

Perhaps more affluent parents in more affluent countries of the world haven't experienced the damage of childhood diseases so have the luxury of picking and choosing. This luck will run out. In this country (UK) only 85% of MMR vaccines are taken up by school children. That leaves a huge proportion of the community open to disease and spreading disease. Illnesses are being seen here again for the first time because of lack of immunisation.

 

I thought non-vaccinating parents must be missing some information to make the decision not to vaccinate and so I came to investigate. Maybe you're offended by that but you can't be too surprised as you'll experience that attitude from pro-vaccinators in everyday life. They think you're hysterical and uneducated. Perhaps instead of insulting me you would be polite and help me learn.

 

 

Aaaand...we're back to creationism again!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post


I'm not alone in despairing for a creationist led science education in America.
 
 
So after you post several times discussing pertussis statistics, you ignore posts quoting Marcia Angell, former editor of New England Journal of Medicine.  You also ignore direct questions as to what you thinks of the fact that such an important doctor has such views,; instead, you imply that anyone who uses any modern medicine is a hypocrite for questioning or criticizing vaccine safety:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post


Do you use modern medicine?

Next, you completely ignore information on whistleblower lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers for safety concerns, and try to focus on what you apparently see as the terrifying risk of germs in the community, or giving germs TO the community:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

Don't you believe your children are at risk of disease? Or your community?

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 
 


Do you and your children mix much with other people?
 
Aaand....back to evolution and creationism again!  Only this time, you throw in a little zinger to imply that we don't want to discuss The Science with you :
 
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

Evolution is the back bone of all biological study. If mums don't know the basics of evolutionary theory then understanding the science behind disease and immunisation is going to be more challenging for them. Isn't it then valid for me to ask? I'm sorry that you find my posts annoying. I found yours harsh and rude. Perhaps you could embrace a new aspect to the vaccination debate rather than shutting it down before it got started? 

 

I've noticed that pro-vaxers are more willing to discuss science on the posts than non-vaxers. 

 
 
Aaaand...your final response to me:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

 

 

If you're right I will notice as we go along.

 

 

Rexeldexel, I don't trust that you will notice as we go along.  In fact, you either have not noticed many valid points that have been made as we went along, or you have ignored them, or you have deftly changed the subject.

If, as you claim, you are here to learn about the perspective of parents who question and/or criticize vaccine safety and efficacy, you're not doing a a very convincing job.  It seems to me that you are more interested in sweetly insisting that we are too poorly educated to know any better.

 

And that's neither a discussion nor a debate.  It's just very insulting.

 
 

Edited by Taximom5 - 2/4/14 at 11:09pm
post #202 of 244
It's not ok to post about other posters. Even new ones. I believe it's against the UA. I have flagged the post to let the mods decide.

Rexeldexel - I for one am enjoying your contribution to the debate. Thanks for being here.
post #203 of 244

Taximom has written directly to Rexeldexel, for the most part. If Taximom changes all the "she's" to -"you"- ("you" referring to Rexeldexel), would that be acceptable? If the entire post were written directly to Rexeldexel, and not about her in certain parts, would that be against the rules? Because that would only involve a few minor changes (changing the word "she's" to the word "you").

post #204 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Taximom has written directly to Rexeldexel, for the most part. If Taximom changes all the "she's" to -"you"- ("you" referring to Rexeldexel), would that be acceptable? If the entire post were written directly to Rexeldexel, and not about her in certain parts, would that be against the rules? Because that would only involve a few minor changes (changing the word "she's" to the word "you").

Thanks, BeckyBird. I had actually tried to do that before I posted, but somehow, the changes only got partially saved. I just went back and fixed it (I hope). There are still a couple of typos, but I'll fix those when I'm not on my iPad, as it's really hard to edit on the iPad,

Since Rexeldexel announced that she was here to learn, I believe that means that I can respond to that, and post my observations, which are mostly direct quotes and an explanation of how those posts are coming across to me. If the mods ask me to edit or delete, I'll be happy to oblige.
post #205 of 244
I'm not a moderator and I'm not sure where the line is crossed in personal comments and insinuations about why different posters engage in these forums. So I flagged the post. smile.gif
post #206 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Who was this wacky editor? Marcia Angell--" the only woman to have served as editor-in-chief of the journal since it was founded in 1812. Dr Marcia Angell is a member of Harvard Medical School's Department of Social Medicine."
"Medical doctor Marcia Angell calls the pharmaceutical industry a 'vast marketing machine' that thrives on monopoly rights and public-sponsored research but produces few innovative drugs."


Do you have ANYTHING to say about the examples of corruption within the system, the unreliability of peer review due to the financial conflicts of interest, or the instances where modern medicine, technology, education, and mainstream scientific publications were wrong? You ask us to follow mainstream science, but what happens when the most current recommendations are later replaced with newer ones?  If science is always advancing, then what happens to the outdated information? The theories you cling to today will be outdated in the future, and replaced with something new. 


I'm not saying corruption doesn't happen as that would be untrue in anything. I am saying that we cannot have hindsight in advance and I am saying that the huge majority of professionals care about people, do not want to cause harm and are able to think intelligently for themselves as opposed to just accepting what they're told.
post #207 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post


 the huge majority of professionals care about people, do not want to cause harm and are able to think intelligently for themselves as opposed to just accepting what they're told.

This is your belief, not a fact. If you want me to agree with you, that would mean I would need to share your belief and faith in the good intentions of humanity. What you have stated may or may not be a fact, and is much closer to a faith based belief. 

 

 I do think most health professionals sincerely want to help people. However, I do believe that many professionals accept what they are told by the medical and scientific authorities. Of course no doctor enjoys cutting off an infant's foreskin. What dentist enjoys seeing a patient shivering with fear in the chair? Do nurses enjoy poking kids all day with needles? No way! Most medical professionals just do what they are taught, because after all, who are they to criticize the authorities? The research has been done! I have a problem with the industry that funds the research, the same research that is then taught to the medical professionals. My problem goes all the way to the top. The medical professionals are also victims, in a way.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what choice do medical professionals have if they disagree with mainstream medicine and science? As it seems to me, they can either speak out and risk their careers, quit altogether and face mountains of debt, or keep quiet, and ignore anything that does not support the current practices.

 

When you wash your hands today, think about the time when modern mainstream medicine laughed at the idea! 

post #208 of 244
It is the very fact that the recommendation change which gives me confidence in them, and that if found to be incorrect they will change in the future.
post #209 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It is the very fact that the recommendation change which gives me confidence in them, and that if found to be incorrect they will change in the future.

I completely agree. 

 

Beckybird: We have evolved to be a cooperative social species. Many people in the past have argued that "survival of the fittest" encourages selfish actions, but that is NOT an evolutionary stable strategy. This is why my *belief* in the goodness of humanity is not only like a "faith based belief", although I would agree there are elements of it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

 

You are right that some people go with the crowd   http://psyc604.stasson.org/Milgram2.pdf BUT there is overwhelming evidence that many DO NOT. This is why we have rebellions. It also contributes to reviews of practice and why, as prosciencemum points out, guidelines change. 


Edited by Rexeldexel - 2/5/14 at 4:48am
post #210 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexeldexel View Post
 

 

Beckybird: We have evolved to be a cooperative social species. Many people in the past have argued that "survival of the fittest" encourages selfish actions, but that is NOT an evolutionary stable strategy. This is why my *belief* in the goodness of humanity is not only like a "faith based belief", although I would agree there are elements of it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

 

 

No, we have not.  War, capitalism, most hate groups…..shall I go on?

 

BeckyBird is absolutely correct when she says:

 

"Out of curiosity, what choice do medical professionals have if they disagree with mainstream medicine and science? As it seems to me, they can either speak out and risk their careers, quit altogether and face mountains of debt, or keep quiet, and ignore anything that does not support the current practices."

 

I can think of two examples from recent months on MDC of where scientists and medical professionals put themselves first in terms of vaccination.  If anyone insists I will dig up the links, but it will be later in the day.

 

1.  There was a study recently that looked at why doctors get the flu shot.  I cannot remember the exact order of reasons, but "my employer insists" and "don't want to get sick" were near the top.  Not wanting to get a family member sick was next.  Coming in somewhere down the list and at less that 20% was "I want to protect my patients."  Doctors pretty clearly put personal reasons above community reasons when it comes to their own flu vaccination.

 

2.  There are mainstream studies that show that industry funded studies are more likely than non-industry funded studies to paint vaccines in a favourable light.  Tweaking, altering, delaying and burying studies that do not show the conclusions the employer wants are commonplace.  Sounds to me like putting personal (job stability) before science.  

 

post #211 of 244

I will add that I am not a negative person.  I have good health, good friends, a loving family, a job I love, volunteer work and I consider myself blessed to live where I live.  I don't think the government or doctors are out to get me.  In many ways, I do believe in the goodness of humanity. Some of that is an entitled viewpoint (I am not sure I would think this way if I was born in Dafur).   I simply do not think that community issues trump personal issues, nor am I sure they should. 

post #212 of 244

Rexeldexel, I have flagged your post. You cannot insult non-vaxers by calling them freeloaders on this board. You can start another a thread on herd immunity - but we have done it to death and it ends up going down hill, as all these thread eventually do. 


Edited by Mirzam - 2/6/14 at 5:31am
post #213 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Rexeldexel, I have flagged your post. You cannot insult non-vaxers by calling them freeloaders on this board. You can start another a thread on herb immunity - but we have done it to death and it ends up going down hill, as all these thread eventually do. 

 

I would love a thread on herb immunity!  How positive that would be.

 

(couldn't resist - and I know it is autocorrect)

 

post #214 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Rexeldexel, I have flagged your post. You cannot insult non-vaxers by calling them freeloaders on this board. You can start another a thread on herb immunity - but we have done it to death and it ends up going down hill, as all these thread eventually do. 

 

I would love a thread on herb immunity!  How positive that would be.

 

(couldn't resist - and I know it is autocorrect)

 

Ha ha ha, it was 6 am here when I posted that, I was half asleep! :innocent

post #215 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Do you use everything willy-nilly?  Plastic water bottles that sit out in the sun?  BPA?  Frankenfoods?  Hydrogenated margarine?  Strong chemical cleaners?  I bet there is something you avoid or minimise because you think the risks are too high.  

 

Perhaps my point wasn't clear. I was pointing out things for which I had no evidence of any long-term harm. Hydrogenated margarine, BPA, strong cleaners are all known to cause specific types of harm. I avoid hydrogenated margarine because it's devastating to my circulatory system, not because I'm afraid of lupus and worried margarine might cause lupus. I reread vaccine inserts before getting a shot to make sure I am aware of the known risks. I do not spend a lot of time worrying over unconfirmed risks that may or may not be loosely correlated with vaccine use (as mentioned in this thread: cancer, general immune disfunction, etc.) These are all personal decision-making choices that I've shared, since my personal choices were being quizzed so heavily in the earlier discussion. It's not a suggestion one way or another for anyone else to follow.

 

Quote:
 This argument is often trotted out to non-vaxxers:  that if we are not 100% natural all the time and concerned about everything, then we are somehow hypocrites.  Well, the argument can be turned around - if you are not unconcerned with everything you put in your body, then by the same token you (general you) are a hypocrite.

 

I'm sorry you've been offended by those kinds of arguments. That wasn't my argument at all. 

post #216 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

You read them all that fast?  I was referring to the original antigen sin, which happens with all diseases, especially pertussis. That "propaganda" references medical literature if you bothered to look at it.  Sorry you found it too difficult to look for.

 

Taximom5, sure, that is entirely possible. Our immune systems are not what they should be despite so=called higher living standards.

I'm sorry, I really did not mean to come across as dismissive. I was looking for one of the studies you provided to show evidence that pertussis has long-term immunity, since I posted a study showing immunity of 4-20 years following natural infection. I didn't see that any of those studies you provided were relevant to that specific point (but eventually I found it, and commented at the very end of this post).

 

However, I did read the abstracts and the somewhat longer blog post. Here are my thoughts (and I will take any follow-up convo on this subject to a new thread, if necessary):

 

About the blog post (http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/whooping_cough_and_chameleons), which has a few studies mentioned, I found it to be an interesting topic but rather poorly constructed. For one thing, the author refers to the Warfel et al. study from 2013 that has already been under discussion in this thread (shows asymptomatic baboon carriers after aP vaccination.) She incorrectly states that this is due to original antigenic sin, when no mention of original antigenic sin was made in the study at all. It's more likely that the vaccine is just inadequate in protecting animals from colonization even when it protects them from the toxin caused by pertussis (which would cause the disease).

 

The second problem I saw in that blog post was that the later studies that she mentions, and attempts to dissect (Cherry et al. 2004, Cherry et al. 2010) are wrongly interpreted.

 

Cherry et al. 2004 was a study designed to create an appropriate diagnostic test, and found that vaccinated children weren't producing a particular antibody even when the vaccine failed and they later acquired pertussis. He speculated about original antigenic sin being the cause, but the study was not at all designed to test that speculation. That study concluded that the particular antigen ACT shouldn't be used for diagnostic purposes.

 

In the later study, 2010, Cherry et al. compared antibody responses in vaccinated children who acquired pertussis to unvaccinated children who acquired pertussis-- a study designed for the purpose of making a recommendation about which antigens to include in the vaccines-- as evidenced in the authors' conclusion: "[o]ur findings lend support to the idea that DTaP vaccines should contain multiple antigens." In fact, that 2010 study showed that even though the antigens that weren't included in the vaccines did not produce an antibody response in subsequent infections, total antibody reponse in "primed" (vaccinated) individuals was higher after infection than in "unprimed" (unvaccinated) individuals after infection. Vaccine priming actually increased production of antibodies following infection, although not all antigens were boosted equally, thus the conclusion to include more antigens and increase the opportunity for a boost of ALL antigens in primed individuals who are later exposed to the bacteria.

 

So this is why I said the blog you provided was propaganda, and more specifically, it wrongly interpreted these studies. 1) The 2004 study was used by the blog author to support her hypothesis that original antigenic sin is THE REASON vaccines fail. The study wasn't designed to show that, and certainly didn't confirm that in any way, so that's an improper way to use this study. 2) Because the 2010 study didn't include the term original antigenic sin, and instead mentions "linked-epitope suppression," Cherry is accused by the blog author of trying to avoid the subject of original antigenic sin entirely. The blog author then reaches her (somewhat unclear) conclusion that because of all of these studies, therefore it's better to get whooping cough disease and produce antibodies that way, rather than to get any vaccine ever. She also seems to imply that getting the vaccine is going to ruin all of your chances at optimum immunity because of original antigenic sin. I also think that's what you were saying in your post, but please correct me if I'm wrong. That conclusion is simply not supported by any of the studies you provided, nor by those provided by the author of that blog.

 

The original antigenic sin article that you provided (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/6/10-0453_article.htm) mentions the discovery of original antigenic sin being made with vaccines, but that the phenomenon is observed with natural exposure as well. The fact that this immune behavior undermines vaccination attempts doesn't mean that vaccines are therefore causing the immune response and putting people at greater risk for infection than those who have disease-acquired immunity to the same illnesses. To the contrary, this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=13109114&dopt=Abstract), used as a reference in that article, is talking specifically about original antigenic sin being observed as a natural phenomenon resulting from childhood infection with flu virus, not vaccination. There is no conclusion whatsoever that vaccination increases the subsequent risk of harm from a later infection, nor that vaccination alone interferes with anticipated disease-acquired immunity.

 

On a final note, since you responded to my claim that someone who contracted pertussis 6 years earlier could not be infected again so soon, even the study claiming 30-year natural immunity says (provided from the author of the blog I discussed above):  "Our results support a period of natural immunity that is, on average, long-lasting (at least 30 years) but inherently variable.... but that some individuals would lose immunity quite rapidly." (http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1000647)

 

CDC says disease-acquired immunity can be lost as soon as 4 years, as with the vaccine.  (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876927)

post #217 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

I hope you reported that reaction to VAERS since the ER and your doctor clearly did not. I hope your son is better. That reaction should be in his record as it is a live virus vaccine and is relevant for future health care decisions.

 

Thank you. And yes, I did make the report and his current ped. is aware of it.

post #218 of 244
Ss834 - thank you for such an amzing and in depth response. That must have taken some time. I personally really appreciate it.
post #219 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Ss834 - thank you for such an amzing and in depth response. That must have taken some time. I personally really appreciate it.

 

I agree.  Thank you, it was really informative. 

post #220 of 244

Ss834, I think you've made some excellent points. I also appreciate how polite and non-confrontational you have been.


I have recently said, several times, that I think that there are problems with the studies on both sides of the vaccination issues--THEY ARE ALL FLAWED.

 

Most of the recent studies that purport to show no link between vaccines and autism have similar flaws as to those you point out upthread.  For example, the study discussed here http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/29/175626824/the-number-of-early-childhood-vaccines-not-linked-to-autism  as well as ALL mainstream news reports of the study, claims that the link between vaccines and autism is debunked.  There are so many flaws with that conclusion, and with that study, it's ridiculous.

 

The "control group" contained a large number of children with autism symptoms (but no official diagnosis); they were compared with children who DID have an autism diagnosis.   

 

The study looked at number of antigens.  Number of antigens is not on anyone's list of concerns regarding autism. The concerns, rather, are about the adjuvants, preservatives, and other ingredients that are injected, possibly in combination with the antigens, but the number of antigens by themselves is not the concern!

 

Looking at something that is not considered a strong link between vaccines and autism, and then dismissing the entire link, is hardly scientific.  One could just as easily look at the kind of paper used in cigarettes, study whether cigarette smokers using one kind of paper over another have a higher rate of cancer, using a control group of cigarette smokers who have SYMPTOMS of cancer, but no formal diagnosis, and then conclude that there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.

 

There are other issues as well.


And that's just one example.  You can go through all the studies and find similar flaws.  On both sides of the issue.

 

It does seem to be a bit of a double standard that the medical community worries about the few individuals who might lose immunity quite rapidly, but not the few individuals who might have severe and/or chronic medical problems resulting from vaccination.

 

I would love it if you would take the same thoughtful and critical approach to the studies that purport to show safety of vaccines.   
 


Edited by Taximom5 - 2/9/14 at 3:55pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Confused about the debate