This is an interesting thread, and I agree with a lot of what has been said. It is good to try to explain how you analyze evidence, so that you can be sure that what you tell yourself and others is credible.
That said, I use a bunch of criteria that evolved the more I researched the subject of vaccinations.
1)My intuition - it told me that all the garbage they put in vaccines should not be injected into the body of an infant - heck I'm an adult and I would not want it injected into me! And the argument that it is only miniscule amounts is hooey, because it adds up to a lot when you add up all the vaccinations on the schedule that they are using now.
2)Indisputable logic is my second criteria (i.e. if I was told to avoid fish because of mercury content while pregnant, how can it be alright to inject my infant with vaccines containing mercury after birth?).
3) Follow the $. If the information comes from someone like Dr. Offut who holds a Rotavirus vaccine patent and has done/is doing research paid for by Merck, I will not believe him when he says that vaccines are safe and effective.
4) Check the sources - books, papers, etc. Are they peer reviewed, credible, written by people who have no conflict of interest? You would not go to the tobbaco company when researching the dangers of smoking cigarettes - same holds true in investigating the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
5) If I read the stories of people who have vaccine damaged children (or whose children died,or who were damaged themselves), I tend to beleive them if after a while I can see a pattern forming that can only mean they are telling the truth vis-a-vis their stories.
Well, I think that about covers it, although I'm sure there is more. Thanks for making me think about this, it was a good mental exercise for me to try and explain the way I process these things!
Roxanne
Daniel 8/9/03 unvaxed and totally healthy
:
Follow Mothering