Evaluating our favorite web-sites - Page 2

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

http://www.aap.org/donate/fcfhonorroll.htm

The big spenders receive the honor of having their logo's splashed on the page. The other pharma's are listed in black underneath.

You'll notice that McDonald's and PepsiCo donate as well . . . two other companies that like to poison children.

Sorry...I'm feeling kind of slow today.
Can one of you spell out exactly how this relationship might effect their research and conclutions about children's health?
I mean, I can see that it's a company(or companies) with products sponsoring the people and organization that attest to the saftey of those products, but I'm a little confused as to exactly *how* that works, kwim?

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Sorry...I'm feeling kind of slow today.
Can one of you spell out exactly how this relationship might effect their research and conclutions about children's health?
I mean, I can see that it's a company(or companies) with products sponsoring the people and organization that attest to the saftey of those products, but I'm a little confused as to exactly *how* that works, kwim?

Go back and look at my post #14. They say that corporate sponsors get special access.

Now, it is always possible that an organization can take money and not have their policies or thinking influenced in any way, shape or form, but it is tricky. This is why foundation money is better, because foundations are designed to be a step away from corporate management. The process of applying for grants also blocks some of the obvious forms of influence (and opens up others, admittedly).

I guess the question comes down to who is in charge, who is pulling the strings, who is setting policy.

Nana

[Deborah]

To get more concrete how this stuff works:

Suppose a consumer organization is making a fuss about children eating huge amounts of sugar. They talk about obesity, diabetes, constipation, behavior problems, etc. They try to get the AAP to sign on to their campaign. AAP looks at their corporate sponsored research and says: sugar in moderate amounts is quite okay and what are you all fussing about? Or, even worse, they have a chat with McDonalds and Pepsico and are told: "Hey, we need some research to support the health and safety of the normal american diet eaten by typical children. Can you find us some nice scientists? We'll pay."

Stuff like this happens.

Nana

[ERSsmom]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Feel free to share my review with them. You can mention that I just picked them out of a Google search with no intention of giving anyone in particular a hard time
Nana

Great thanks. I will be sure to not offend anyone or make them think we were picking on them. Perhaps I will say something along the lines of "as someone who values your website and your cause, may I make a few suggestions" or something along those lines.

[Deborah]

I wanted to add, on the plus side for AAP, they do not make any attempt to conceal their sources of income. The extreme openness of their statements is a positive in my opinion.

Haven't looked at the CDC site yet, but I suspect it would take considerable research on their site and elsewhere to spot the industry influence and the conflicts of interest.

Nana

[ERSsmom]

Not to mention the fact that I find their site hard to navigate. It is really easy to find their pamphlets that they give to parents, but more...shall I say scientific information is hard to find. It could just be me though, I am not really internet savvy .

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

See this is a sticky one.

If you analysed the IAS.org.nz website you'd give it a crappy rating.

But the point is the IAS doesn't have the time, money, people or resources to do more than a skeleton attempt at a website. Sometimes I think no website would be better. But its the best that can be done under the circumstances.

A lot of websites look fantastic. They are well organised, have lots of money flung at them, are well run, kept updated, but are a load of corporate bollocks, and designed to push personal wheelbarrows.

But you don't know that, if you don't know what some of the pitfalls in the basic information is. As per some of the stuff I put on Am's thread.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

See this is a sticky one.

If you analysed the IAS.org.nz website you'd give it a crappy rating.

But the point is the IAS doesn't have the time, money, people or resources to do more than a skeleton attempt at a website. Sometimes I think no website would be better. But its the best that can be done under the circumstances.

A lot of websites look fantastic. They are well organised, have lots of money flung at them, are well run, kept updated, but are a load of corporate bollocks, and designed to push personal wheelbarrows.

But you don't know that, if you don't know what some of the pitfalls in the basic information is. As per some of the stuff I put on Am's thread.

Good point Momtezuma Tuatara. On the other hand, even a financially strapped organization can manage to tell who they and where they get their financial support. Putting dates on items is also not a high tech activity.

When librarians analyze information, especially medical information, they are well aware of the sad fact that those with the big bucks are not those with the best intentions. I don't think many librarians would actually be impressed by the AAP as a source: the corporate input is just way too obvious. On the other hand, I did see an article once by a librarian who thought that Quackwatch was just great. She saw that he was supposedly a doctor and that he said that he wasn't taking any corporate money and went ooh la la! Sad.

Anyway, aren't you the one who recommended that people find original medical research to quote, rather than depending on books and web-sites with secondary material?

Not trying to pick a fight. I know when I'm outclassed... :

Nana

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Anyway, aren't you the one who recommended that people find original medical research to quote, rather than depending on books and web-sites with secondary material?

Not trying to pick a fight. I know when I'm outclassed... :

Nana

Yes, I am. Therefore you could say its hypocritical to have written a book.

I rarely go to websites, or read books. But here, we are talking about the principals of analysis, and in this regard, something else I said here some time back, about Condalisa Rice, is relevant.

There was a big article about her recently in this country, and they considered that what she said had "more credibility" because she was a savvy "power" dresser with every hair in place. So. Satan, in the Bible is depicted as an Angel of Light and the Father of Lies.

And we all know from school projects, that "presentation is half the battle". Condalisa Rice can shut people's brain down, because they see clean lines, cultured language, and therefore think she must know what she's talking about.

However, I'm mindful that the medical profession is doing surveys on this very topic. And the last three articles they have published on the issue show me one thing.

The only reason they want to know how we analyse information, the reasoning behind our choices etc, is not to respect our choices, or understand us better, but to counter us.

If this forum was a protected forum, I would be prepared to talk more. Given that we are watched and read, I'd rather not make their job of keeping tabs on us, or understanding what we think any easier...

[mamakay]

Geez...you're really freaking me out, Momtezuma.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Deborah

To get more concrete how this stuff works:

Suppose a consumer organization is making a fuss about children eating huge amounts of sugar. They talk about obesity, diabetes, constipation, behavior problems, etc. They try to get the AAP to sign on to their campaign. AAP looks at their corporate sponsored research and says: sugar in moderate amounts is quite okay and what are you all fussing about? Or, even worse, they have a chat with McDonalds and Pepsico and are told: "Hey, we need some research to support the health and safety of the normal american diet eaten by typical children. Can you find us some nice scientists? We'll pay."

Stuff like this happens.

Nana

Is there any way we could prove that this is (or probably is) going on with the AAP?

[Deborah]

Well, two similar things happened recently. There have been some attempts to reduce sugar consumption by children, worldwide. The public rollout was gutted. If I have time I'll see if I can find some actual news stories.

The other one was an attempt to promote breastfeeding. Also gutted, this time through the influence of formula companies. That one was discussed on this forum, at the time.

Let's all search the AAP web-site. Anyone who can find something they are doing that would offend 1)a drug company 2)a junk food company gets a little online party.

Nana

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

Yes, I am. Therefore you could say its hypocritical to have written a book.

Wouldn't dare! You write whatever you like. Hope it gets published. I'll buy a copy for my library.

The only reason they want to know how we analyse information, the reasoning behind our choices etc, is not to respect our choices, or understand us better, but to counter us.

Well, it will be easier to counter us if all the websites criticizing vaccines are sloppy, have no citations, etc., etc. Hence I'd like to encourage people to present information that meets certain basic standards to deflect some obvious criticism.

If this forum was a protected forum, I would be prepared to talk more. Given that we are watched and read, I'd rather not make their job of keeping tabs on us, or understanding what we think any easier...

Good point. The basic critiques I'm offering are the standard stuff taught in every library school. No secrets. Nothing odd or weird.

Nana

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Well, it will be easier to counter us if all the websites criticizing vaccines are sloppy, have no citations, etc., etc. Hence I'd like to encourage people to present information that meets certain basic standards to deflect some obvious criticism.

I'm not sure about that. I think that the best thing would be that these people not even know what we think, or how we analyse actually. That way they will have to assume what we think and that way, their counter-strategy would be useless.

Everything I do is very well references, and goes in front of several doctors for analysis before it sees the light of day. And I don't think I've misrepresented anything. But always, no matter the sources I quote, these are the things I, and people like me are accused of:

1) Having no medical degree

2) Having no mathematical training, therefore unable to understand the issue of "odds". (never mind that the P-value was a figure plucked out of the air for convenience....)

3) The the information is taken out of context, and misinterpretted.

4) That it ignores "their" side of the story.

5) That the argument is simplistic. (which is the most laughable since theirs is about illiterate congoese level)

6) Not being an infectious disease specialist.

7) Not being an epidemiologist.

8) That all anti-vaccination information is based on baseful fear mongering (one example = what mercury can do).

Again, never mind that theirs is too, but they can't see that. The rubella pamphlet in this country has three words on the cover. Death, blindness, brain damage.

That's all people say. But to them, that's not fear mongering, that's the truth. When we start saying things like "encephalitis, urticaria or bronchospasm" we are fear mongering.

There is always one standard for them and a different one for us.

And that's why, no matter how "well" referenced any site it, it will never be enough.

Because you can never rebut this issue on the basis of interpretation of medical literature. "They" will always have their own interpretation and "they" will never agree that there is any other interpretation or any other "choice".

The basic critiques I'm offering are the standard stuff taught in every library school. No secrets. Nothing odd or weird. Nana

Again, that's fine for standard and non-controversial subjects. But when it comes to medical issues, the goal posts aren't in the same holes, and the medical profession shifts them around all that time.

Which is why its so important for people to learn first, not how to analyse information, but how to think and more importantly, how to think outside the square.

Everyone is here becasue they have children. Right?

Everyone is looking at the issue, becuase they want to do the right thing, right?

Well, the first and best thing they can do is to read a book by Edward de Bono called "Teach your child how to think." many people might find it a revelation for themselves, not just their children. Follow that up with "I am right You are wrong", "Lateral thinking" "Teaching thinking" and some of his other books.

I did this many years ago. I didn't agree with everything in them, but when I came out the other side, it change show I analyse dinformation, because I was in a better position to see the flaws in reductionist thinking, and also ask the questions which I hadn't been able to think of before.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Geez...you're really freaking me out, Momtezuma.

It is very important that people realise that this issue is one that is most important to the medical profession. They will do everything in their power to shut down dissent on this issue, and the reasons are very clear.

In future, dissent or even discussion of this issue, may be stopped.

You only have to read medical journals, and research as I do, to see that very clearly on the horizon.

[mamakay]

You have a weird way of getting to the heart of the matter, MT. It's kinda eerie.
"I am right You are Wrong" is a great book, btw. Haven't read the others.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

"weird"? Well, maybe. After all, I'm a lateral thinker. But from my point of view, I just say it as I see it. "Eerie"??? I don't think so... I would call it realistic. I'm sure Semmelweiss, Holmes and Pillemer would agree.

Now, was it Woody Allen who said "I'm not paranoid. Maybe someone really is after me."

Already in your country if a parent doesn't want to do cancer chemo/radiation etc, they know the reality of what I'm saying.

[Deborah]

Well, yeah, I think you are right. There is no way in hell the medical establishment is ever going to admit they are wrong about vaccinations.

How about parents who are trying to research the question? If they go looking at critical web-sites and see that they have no references, are sloppy, undated, don't tell anyone who they are...

Someone who is balancing on the edge, struggling to figure this out, in a lot of cases is looking for reassurance, that nice pat on the back, the confidence that the authorities really know what they are talking about and the critics are full of S**T.

The more people questioning this, the harder time the "authorities" will have closing down discussion.

Librarians lean towards trusting authority figures, but, we are also supposed to offer more than one side on controversial matters, even on medical questions.

An example. Burlington, Vermont, is currently debating if they should take the fluoride out of the water supply. It is blowing up into a major argument, with the authorities trying the "there is nothing to discuss, everything has already been taken care of" approach to the matter and the critics yelling everything from "toxic" to "personal right not to be forcibly medicated." I saw a notice in today's paper that folks can trot over to the library for a full selection of information on all aspects of the argument, not just the official line. This is what a good public library is supposed to do, and I would quit being a librarian before I would agree to offer only the "official" line on any topic.

Cheers! I'm enjoying this discussion.

Nana

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Someone who is balancing on the edge, struggling to figure this out, in a lot of cases is looking for reassurance, that nice pat on the back, the confidence that the authorities really know what they are talking about and the critics are full of S**T.

I don't think that is determined by "knowing" what the truth is. I was thinking about what we were talking about, in terms of people's ability to think.

It's become very clear in this country, that even though people are seeing through the crud from the health department, the basic problem isn't whose right, or who is wrong.

The problem is that some people are so scared NOT to do it. They think "If I don't what will my doc/family/friends/husband/dog say? What are my options?" Because fear is what is generating the decisionmaking process, and because most people are scared to be different, are scared to stand on their convictions, and scared of being left to their own devices (as they see it) it doesn't matter how much information you put in front of them.

If they don't have the backbone to be different, and stand on their convictions they will try to have a bob both ways.

They will do the vaccine thing, and also try to do the supplement, homeopathy/whatever, simply because they haven't resolved very basic issues, which have NOTHING to do with evaluating information, but have everything to do with backbone and conviction.

Until they deal with that, then evaluation of information is a secondary issue.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

This was written by my husband and I think is relevant.

A Different Perspective.

A number of years ago I wrote the following article for a magazine.

It still remains a very important “perspective” and sets out what I believe every person needs to consider before getting bogged down in the vaccination issue. A solid “foundation” has to be laid before any “building” can take place.)

Here is the article with a few minor adjustments to update it.

… As parents, are we are united over those things that relate to the immunization debate? The simple answer is “that a house which is divided against itself cannot stand.” It will destroy itself.

It would be very difficult, were we not united, to survive in the lifestyle we have chosen.

United in the cause, yes, but… we see things differently. Usually I keep to the shadows and say little outside of our home, but I have listened to countless hours of “talk” in one form or another. I have read thousands of pages of printed matter, and am sometimes called upon to offer advice, opinion, and smooth my owl’s ruffled feathers!

The time has come when I feel constrained to offer another perspective for wider circulation – a perspective which needs to be considered because it raises issues which are rarely, if ever, specifically and bluntly set out for very personal consideration before any crisis situation occurs or not.

Vaccination, of course, relates to the topic of health. Anything to do with health, whether we like it or not, confronts us with birth and death, and everything in between. Disease, sickness and especially death, are not welcomed. Are we going to face up to how we handle these inescapable matters, or are we going to run away from them? A solid belief basis or “foundation” THAT WE CAN CONFIDENTLY COMMIT OUR LIVES TO is essential. How often do people ask the question, “What if something goes wrong?,” a question that has to be answered whichever way we finally decide to go.

Carefully consider the issue I am writing about, when it is simply and clearly stated as a question.

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? (and other health related questions could be substituted.)

A choice is offered. There is no compulsion in this country – yet. But a DECISION has to be made.

A decision not to vaccinate will mean that you have to go against the flow of the majority. The costs of ‘being different’ have to be worked through point by point, e.g. pressures from the health Department, doctors, family, friends, school, etc. Plus the “What if?” question mentioned above. Very strong convictions are necessary, and maybe a pretty thick skin!

·Time has to be found to make this decision.
·Ask, look and listen.
·Question everything, but keep the issues simple.
·Too much information can be counter-productive and lead to confusion.
·Not all decisions will be based on medical literature.
·For some, the “spiritual” component of one’s being will be more important.

Readers having got this far, may say, “What’s new? We’ve heard this before!”

But have you really “heard” it? Or have you only “heard” it as you want to hear it?

Let me put to you some questions to be answered at a personal level:

1)Are you willing NOW to face up to the possible consequences of any sickness or disease especially as it may affect your children, whether you vaccinate or not?

2)If something goes wrong e.g. life-threatening “complications”, side effects, brain damage or even death, do you have a “faith” which will see you through the crisis, however long it may be?

3)Continuing good health is what everyone wants, but how are you going to achieve it? Who are you going to listen to? Are you confused by the many voices of the so-called experts who seem to say so many different and “new” things – almost on a daily basis?

4)Do you have convictions that will not be compromised whatever strategies, pressures and arguments are brought to bear on you? Are you able to verbalise them simply with confidence and clarity? This is important. If you are not convinced yourself, how can you convince others?

5)When faced with the choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, are you prepared to acknowledge that you HAVE to make a decision?

6)What is that decision to be based on? For example, pressure and/or smooth talk of health “professionals”; your “gut feeling”; a “faith”(that won’t let you down!); human wisdom?

7)When you make your decision, are you prepared to accept responsibility for it, whatever the outcome? Or will you want to look around for scapegoats if something goes wrong – someone or something to blame?

8)If you are unwilling to make a well-informed decision then you have to allow someone else to make it for you. If you delegate your responsibility to another person, are you prepared to accept the outcomes without apportioning blame if they are not what you want?

Working through searching questions such as those you have just read will not be easy, and that is why you need to face the life and death issues (and everything in between!) for they will not go away, no matter how much you try to dodge them. Decisions have to be made, because they can’t be dodged either.

On both sides of the vaccination debate you will have to deal with people – either face to face, or by considering their points-of-view, persuasions, arguments, recommendation or whatever, expressed in a variety of ways and often very “convincingly”. Remember however, that people and human wisdom are certainly not infallible.

I am totally convinced that the points I have focused on need to be dealt with BEFORE any in-depth study introduces red herrings, and people become bogged down in medical terminology, and with the dubious promises and guarantees of vested interests – yes, on BOTH sides of the fence!

I know where I stand, and I know what my convictions are based on. Without such a foundation I would have every reason to be scared stiff. Whether to vaccinate or not is an important question to be resolved, but this other matter of convictions is even more important, because it must provide an answer for life’s uncertainties.

~ my husband (from MT)