or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Here We Go Again: Deconstructing "Leaving The Anti-Vaccine Movement"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Here We Go Again: Deconstructing "Leaving The Anti-Vaccine Movement"  

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 


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. "

http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/12/727.full.pdf  

"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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15764492

"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
post #2 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

I read the article.
http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/leaving-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

She sounds weak minded and easily swayed. I don't think it matters what the issue is for her. She was easily swayed toward not vaccinating, and then easily swayed toward fully vaccinating.

Yes, it certainly sounds like she wants to be part of a group that does her thinking for her.
post #3 of 80

Deleted - fit better under nuku's thread.  Carry on!


Edited by kathymuggle - 2/11/14 at 6:18am
post #4 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

"20yr old mother of two' speaks volumes to me...she hasnt the life experience needed to truly make a rational decision, nor does it seem she has the brains for critical thinking that is needed. To me, the article is very  telling in how gullible and easily swayed our younger generation really can be.  Yes, her youth is showing. 

Emmy I couldn't agree more, I wanted to mention this, but didn't want to be accused of being ageist! My eldest is 23 and I can't imagine her being swayed into vaccinating so easily. 

post #5 of 80

I have a few friends who know her personally. She is a nutcase, putting it nicely.

post #6 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

"20yr old mother of two' speaks volumes to me...she hasnt the life experience needed to truly make a rational decision, nor does it seem she has the brains for critical thinking that is needed. To me, the article is very  telling in how gullible and easily swayed our younger generation really can be.  Yes, her youth is showing. 

I have to say. I disagree with this. I made the decision to stop vaccinations when my son was 12 months old. I was 22. We're not all gullible and easily swayed. Don't generalize a group of people because of one person.

post #7 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilbsmama View Post
 

I have a few friends who know her personally. She is a nutcase, putting it nicely.

 

 

Careful - defamation of character.  Not sure if it applies here or not, and she is not here to defend herself.

 

also……:(……..if she is a nutcase.  It makes me even more annoyed with V4V for putting up whatever without caring for their authors.  

post #8 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Emmy I couldn't agree more, I wanted to mention this, but didn't want to be accused of being ageist! My eldest is 23 and I can't imagine her being swayed into vaccinating so easily. 

Agreed.  I defend her right as a mother to make the call to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but her age is a concern when it comes to how much weight we should give her words.

 

I have an almost 18 year old.  He is smart and can argue a point like nobodies business….but he does not have the wisdom that comes with age or life experience to temper his thoughts.  

post #9 of 80

Do you think V4V gives a sh!t how they make people look when they believe it furthers their agenda? They seem to make a habit of exploiting naive parents.


Edited by Mirzam - 3/24/14 at 1:53pm
post #10 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Do you think V4V gives a sh!t how they make people look when they believe it furthers their agenda? They seem to make a habit of exploiting naive parents.

No, I don't.  

post #11 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Do you think V4V gives a sh!t how they make people look when they believe it furthers their agenda? They seem to make a habit of exploiting naive parents.

No, I don't.  

This is what makes their efforts so transparent and pathetic (with anyone with a brain cell and a half).

post #12 of 80
Yeah alot of us have been facebook friends with her for years.. and had to delete and block her. She really went off the deep end. I remember a status of hers saying "I wish I could get the girls all of their shots at once." It went from one extreme to another. I have zero respect for her.
post #13 of 80

The part about "finding the CDC" and learning the truth.  It was the CDC website that convinced me NOT to vaccinate.  It's been a long time since I really dug into it, so I don't know if the info is still available, but if you really fished around their site, you could read things that were supposed to just be for doctors to read.  It was their dishonesty and deception that put me over the edge.  I couldn't believe the spin they put on things.  They didn't actually deny many, many of the things that non-vaxers say, they just tried to sugar coat it.  I felt that if they were willing to stretch and spin so much with the simple things, what were they doing with the real information?  How could I even remotely trust anything they said, when it was plain they were willing to deceive?  I wish I had time to pull some of it up, but maybe someone else has something on file?  I'd have to just start digging again.

post #14 of 80
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilbsmama View Post
 

I have a few friends who know her personally. She is a nutcase, putting it nicely.

 

Yeah, I don't know if this is even relevant.


I know plenty of "nut cases" who have good critical thinking skills.  Some are even brilliant.

 

It could be argued that the author of this Daily Beast article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/the-real-reason-pediatricians-want-you-to-vaccinate-your-kids.html) is clearly both extremely intelligent/well-educated and a total nutcase--his delusions of grandeur and obsessive need to control are obvious. (And he is welcome to come here and defend himself, though he doesn't seem to have been confident enough to let his name appear on the article!)
 

 My criticism of the V4V article has nothing to do with whether or not anyone thinks the author is a nut-case.  I went to her blog, and she describes herself as " a feminist, an atheist, pansexual, and polyamorous." That does strike me as extremely...unusual, especially for someone who haspublicly expressed a desperation for acceptance into a peer group. 

 


Edited by Taximom5 - 3/24/14 at 9:48pm
post #15 of 80

Well, I felt it was. I have been in several groups with her on facebook. She birthed her babies at home, breastfed, etc. Decided not to vaccinate, and then one day just completely changed her mind and started attacking her friends who had chosen not to vaccinate their families. Seems nutty to me.

post #16 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherFamily View Post
 

The part about "finding the CDC" and learning the truth.  It was the CDC website that convinced me NOT to vaccinate. 

Ditto, to a degree.

 

I initially became non-vax in an era when information was harder (not impossible) to get….and I could not justify giving my babies a vaccine when health care professionals could not even tell me how prevalent a diseases was.  

 

However, the info in the CDC largely cemented my decision to remain non-vax.  It helped take the fear out of some diseases and gave me information on prevalence data. 

 

Sometimes you have to dig at the CDC - soundbites on the parent pages do not always line up with what is said elsewhere (I would not say they lie, but they cherry pick their own data and they do manipulate it in interesting ways)

post #17 of 80
Thread Starter 
I see.
Edited by Taximom5 - 3/24/14 at 9:50pm
post #18 of 80

The most significant thing about the article is that it says a lot about Voices for Vaccines, that they would publish it.

post #19 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilbsmama View Post
 

Well, I felt it was. I have been in several groups with her on facebook. She birthed her babies at home, breastfed, etc. Decided not to vaccinate, and then one day just completely changed her mind and started attacking her friends who had chosen not to vaccinate their families. Seems nutty to me.

Ok.  I did not mean to critisize in post 10.   I struggle with what is ok to post online with regard to privacy, negative asessment, etc….so I think my previous post was coming more from there. Carry on :)  

post #20 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

The most significant thing about the article is that it says a lot about Voices for Vaccines, that they would publish it.

This. It's like: "Is this the best they have got?" 


Edited by Mirzam - 3/24/14 at 1:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Here We Go Again: Deconstructing "Leaving The Anti-Vaccine Movement"