Boy, those members of VoicesForVaccines sure think in lockstep, don't they? It's the same pattern that we saw in Amy Parker's article.
Here we go again.
Megan Sandlin is a formerly super-crunchy, 20-year-old mother of 2, who implies that criticizing vaccines necessitates believing in chemtrails, "intactivism," (way to piss off your religious Jewish friends there) and homeopathy (I'm not saying anything against homeopathy here, as I've never tried it, but clearly I am proof that one doesn't have to believe in homeopathy in order to criticize vaccines).
She says she was forced to rely on sites like Mercola and whale.to for her information? Perhaps she is just not experienced at researching? The rest of us have managed to find studies on nih.gov, on PubMed, published in the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and she's "forced to rely on whatever she can find on Google?" Her anti-vax friends "put ideas into her head?" What, she can't think for herself?
She makes it sound like those who question vaccine safety are just squeamish: "these nasty-sounding ingredients in vaccines." Come on, girlfriend, we couldn't care less how "nasty-sounding" ingredients are; we do, however, care that some of these ingredients are causally linked with neurological and autoimmune problems.
Oh, but wait, she does discover PubMed! She pulls up hundreds of studies showing that there were safety studies on vaccines!
Did she bother to actually read them? Or did she not understand that they were set up without true placebos, without comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated, without following subjects for more than a few days, without looking for certain adverse reactions, or, in many cases, on people who were unable to read and write (who could not possibly have given "informed consent." http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/88922/gsk-fined-over-vaccine-trials-14--babies-reported-dead "The charges included experimenting with human beings as well falsifying parental authorizations so babies could participate in the vaccine-trials conducted by the laboratory from 2007 to 2008. "
"Although a good general recall of trial concepts was demonstrated, only a small proportion of the participants correctly interpreted and recalled the concepts of randomisation and placebos. Informed consent in this and similarly disadvantaged communities may often be inadequate and new ways to improve understanding of the research process should be explored."
She doesn't seem to realize that the concern so many of us have over vaccine ingredients has nothing to do with the number of antigens in the vaccines, because that's the only argument she attempts to refute. Apparently, she has either never heard of the recent studies linking other vaccine ingredients, such as adjuvants or preservatives, with autoimmune disorders, with seizures, with neurological disorders, with paralytic disorders.
I was able to find a number of studies on PubMed that show cause for concern, without having to go to either Mercola or Whale.
Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886
"Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.
Vaccines and Febrile Seizures http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23984960
"Vaccine administration is the second leading cause of febrile seizures (FS"
Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing vaccines: a brief communication. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773696
"An association between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing DTaP vaccines was found, but additional studies should be conducted to confirm and extend this study."
Neurodevelopmental disorders following thimerosal-containing childhood immunizations: a follow-up analysis
"The present study provides additional epidemiological evidence supporting previous epidemiological, clinical and experimental evidence that administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines in the United States resulted in a significant number of children developing NDs."
Risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome following H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in Quebec http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22782419
"In Quebec, the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) vaccine was associated with a small but significant risk of GBS." (Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a paralytic disease)
Interesting that Ms. Sandlin waited until her youngest child was 10 months old before deciding to catch her daughters up on vaccines. She says she was "terribly wrong" about vaccines; how terribly wrong was she, if her children never caught anything AND weren't subjected to any of the risks associated with very early vaccination?
Again, she equates questioning and criticizing vaccine safety/efficacy with believing that doctors are "evil," scientists are "trying to kill your kids with toxins," and vaccine researchers are "trying to scam you out of your money."
Just like Amy Parker's trick: Discredit "them" by painting your former self (as one of "them") as a vacuous, gullible cult devotee, with extreme beliefs and bizarre behavior.
And that's exactly what she does: "I now view the anti-vaccine movement as a sort of cult, where any sort of questioning gets you kicked out, your crunchy card revoked."
Anybody else notice that she's not addressing the scientists who believe there's some cause for concern over vaccine safety? In her mind, apparently, there is only room for "science" and the diametrically opposed "anti-vaccine movement." There is no room for intelligent, well-educated parents questioning the science, or, heaven forbid, actually criticizing it.
That kind of "us vs them" thinking is more of an indication of cult mentality than the questioning and/or criticizing of science.
Edited by Taximom5 - 2/11/14 at 5:56am