or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Dealing With Your Doctor › Name that lie . . . and other scaremongering stories and quotes from your ped
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Name that lie . . . and other scaremongering stories and quotes from your ped - Page 7

post #121 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERSsmom
I am still not understanding why you would dismiss some commonly vaccinated illnesses.
I don't, but some people will.
post #122 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
May we get back to the topic at hand now? I like to understand where people are coming from and I don't "meet" many anti-vax parents. It's nice to know y'all's reasoning so that I can better understand it. (Notice I did not say berate you or fire you from my practice)
If you have been lurking for a year, then our reasoning should not be a big mystery? There is hardly a person here who has not been told something patently ridiculous by a pediatrician. This is a thread to highlight those very real experiences and to demonstrate that doctors, contrary to their own popular belief, are not infallible. Parents often wonder how they can question something that so many pediatricians seem so sure about. Well, clearly many peds are grossly misinformed when it comes to immunization and VPDs. Remembering this empowers parents to think and learn for themselves.
post #123 of 666
I was on the anti-circ page and was honestly flabbergasted that some Peds are berating parents for not circ'ing. It's amazing to see (my opinions on circ'ing are my own and not to be pushed upon another). But after 6 pages of negative experiences, I thought I'd chime in. You know, the "enemy" speaks.

Not all physicians believe they are infallible. I wouldn't want to work with one who did.
post #124 of 666
Folks, please. If you all recall, when I first posted I was LAMBLASTED by some of the hardcores. Fortunately I've stuck it out and I think I've learned from you all, and I hope I've been helpful to some of you all in terms of providing a physician's perspective.

Easy now. It's GOOD for us to share different viewpoints and perspectives. Don't forget: many of we physicians are quite ignorant about vaccinations. It's true. This is a chance to both learn and to educate. Let's not blow it.
post #125 of 666
So, Gene ... giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you are indeed a pedi and seem to be open-minded:

What is your opinion of the scaremongering stories and outright BS lies that the posters here have experienced from their docs?
post #126 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
If I had a patient whose parents requested no vaccination (or delayed), I'd be fine with it.
Thank you for that. You would be shocked at the number of practices I've been kicked out of for saying "no thank you we don't vaccinate". Not because I started a fight , not because I said the doctor was in the wrong for advocating vaccines , but for calmly stating my preference.



Quote:
My only request would be that they mentioned the lack of vaccinations if/when their child is seen for sick visits (IF OR WHEN). That's only because we are trained to think that common things occur commonly. We tend to dismiss some commonly vaccinated illnesses because we assume that our patient is vaccinated (especially true in the ER where a parent and/or records may not be available).
I understand , truly I do. I want to give the attending doctor all the relevant information. I want the correct diagnosis for my child so I can go about proper treatment.



Why does immunization status change diagnosis ? We both know vaxes aren't 100%. So a child presenting with pertussis like symptoms , but is vaxed will recieve "acute bronchitis" as a diagnosis...but the same child not vaxed will recieve "pertussis" as a diagnosis. I find that withholding vaccine information from the doctor often gives me a better diagnosis.

I had a doctor tell me "If she wasn't vaccinated that would be a textbook case of the mumps. But because she's up to date it's most likely strep throat." . It was mumps.



Quote:
There are risks and benefits to any medical intervention. And, as parents, we are responsible for weighing them for both ourselves and our children. Which way the scale tips is for you do decide.
Thank you for understanding it is the PARENTS job to decide. You seem to be a rare breed of pedatricians who understand that parents are educated well read individuals who ARE thinking and acting out the best interests to their child.



Quote:
May we get back to the topic at hand now? I like to understand where people are coming from and I don't "meet" many anti-vax parents. It's nice to know y'all's reasoning so that I can better understand it. (Notice I did not say berate you or fire you from my practice)
I appreciate you wanting to know our side a little better. As you read thru this thread , and the rest of the forum you'll see we aren't treated with respect by doctors. We've had many doctors come here saying "yes we want to know your side" and then just after we open the door to them we get a pie in the face...their true intentions come floating out. They don't want to know our side , they want to tell us we are wrong , we are harming our children , we are the ones who keep these diseases in circulation.....they spread lies. The lies we get everywhere else in life.
post #127 of 666
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
May we get back to the topic at hand now?
Sure. Do you have a scare mongering story to share?
post #128 of 666
This was not my ped, but one I interviewed after a recent move. Let's just say we did not hire him. After a long winded conversation that I posted a rant on and request for interview tips here:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=431409

He ended the interview with this little gem:

"You, and parents like you, are going to be responsible for an apocalyptic return of deadly diseases."

ETA: He also told me that I could go to the nearest cemetary for evidence of all the little children who have died from these diseases.
post #129 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
Dude, because I've been lurking for about a year, joined in October and never posted. So since I have to have 50 posts, I played the game. Mild protest on my part.
post #130 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
As a pediatrician, I find it interesting to read these posts. If I had a patient whose parents requested no vaccination (or delayed), I'd be fine with it. My only request would be that they mentioned the lack of vaccinations if/when their child is seen for sick visits (IF OR WHEN). That's only because we are trained to think that common things occur commonly.
Okay, that's logical, but its also predictive of a prescribed thought pattern that if a parent says the child isn't vaccinated your primary thoughts will first be diverted to the diseases against which the child is not vaccinated.... and as you say
Quote:
We tend to dismiss some commonly vaccinated illnesses because we assume that our patient is vaccinated (especially true in the ER where a parent and/or records may not be available).
Which adds in the inherent bias that if you ASSUME that a patient is vaccinated, then what you see can't be "that" disease.

It's called bias by nature of expectation. It's interesting too, if you look at, say the early diphtheria medical literature, how blatant this predictive dismissal can be. For instance, the series of articles about diphtheria in Finland in the 70's I think it was..... reviewing past diphtheria cases, particularly those in vaccinated children. There was strong admonishment, blatantly there for all to see, that diphtheria in vaccinated children cannot be diphtheria, and should be reported as tonsillitis

And if you knew the half of the rubbish that CDC fed you in the 90's when Russia was experiencing a diphtheria epidemic you would be so embarrassed. But... the reality is that you needn't worry, because MOST people around here can't read russian medical journals, therefore they don't know that a whole lot of the stuff CDC dished up for your nourishment, was a load of oxymoronic bollocks.

Quote:
Herd immunity is an interesting "animal".
That it is, is it not.

Does it not go something like "oh, to be of bovine ilk; to chew thine cud and just make milk"

Which frankly is what most parents out there who have allowed themselves to be conditioned by the system are. Part of a herd.

I am not.

Quote:
There are some communities where the rate of vaccination is so low that some diseases seem to be making a comeback.
and then there are countries like the one I live in where the whooping cough vaccine has done absolutely squat in terms of either the death rate, or the infection rate, such that anyone not part of the herd gets their daily merriment watching the ludicrous ads on TV,... until they realise how damaging and pernicious that brainwashing is, that they serious want to realign the funders of the TV ads faces.

Quote:
A smallpox outbreak would be a tragic example, as few people under the age of 35-40 received the vaccine (I did, as did DH - we were part of a study) and the immunity of those older has waned.
Ah. Says she sucking in her breath.

This tells me that you know nothing about smallpox history and the "great lie" that was perpetrated by your professors or seniors, which you have clearly bought into.

A thorough study of the UK smallpox history should disabuse you of that notion. Particularly note the year in which "alastrim" was first mentioned and note well all the excuses dragged around to justify the splitting of the classifications. Also note well WHY certain district refused to use vaccination and that their solutions led to smallpox "disappearing" in their districts long before the people who use used vaccination.

Quote:
Great study published decades ago, though, suggests that even those vaccinated as much as 80yrs previously had some protection (they got a milder case).
Sad to say, that study was as useful and reliable as Jenners founding paper, which was based on both nonsense and a type of fraud. Oh yes, and did you know that despite being paid the equivalent of a modern day fortune for a vaccination which was supposed to protect for life, after one shot, Jenner revaccinated every year? Which made not much difference since if you go through the Registrar general's stats in the UK, you will come across many vaccinated patients who had smallpox many times. I did however, choke over the case of the poor block who got it 8 times, and the nineth time the Registrar General curtly states "This time, he died."

Somewhere on this board is extensive material put up by me on Smallpox history, and the interesting story you doctors rarely get to hear. While extensive, it was still a precis summary. Some of that might go some way to reassure you. However, please be aware that the vaccine itself in the many decades in which it was administered arm to arm, was a major cause of spread of TB, syphillis and other diseases, as well as leprosy in the tropics....

Quote:
And NO, that is NOT supposed to be a scare tactic. The chance of a smallpox outbreak is so small that the risks associated with the vaccine would cause more deaths.
Ah yes, but don't you find it slightly ironic, that during the decades when your ancestral paediatricians were in nightly sweats and daily hysteria about the woes of smallpox, that the then 259 (at least) noted side effects were considered of no consequence? No matter that they often included death, and that these horrendous side effects were the primary reason for the uprising of ordinary people in the UK, in the late 1800's who were not prepared to see any more of their babies die. Doctors were rightly feared, and not just for their penchant for killing people with puerperal fever.

And when you consider just HOW the smallpox vaccine was made up until very recently, and the acknowledged and listed contamination of the vaccine in the medical literature, don't you wonder how any sensible thinking paediatrician could even consider using such a ghastly vaccine in the first place?

However, let us play devil's advocate here. I presume you know Ken Alibek? I mean, the issue of a smallpox outbreak isn't to be trifled with if you want to subscribe to the current Bush doctrine of hysteria whipping, and high cortisol level management regarding the Bird Flu. Though its no recent phenomenon in the so-called land of the free. Many at the top right now, had plenty of practice as junior minions in the days of the Swine Flu Fiasco... interestingly, they don't appear to have learned much since.

Were there to be a terrrorist biological weapons attack based on a smallpox virus, you don't honestly think terrorists would be so naive as to "just" use a smallpox virus do you?

No. I suggest that any terrorist with any brains would use a camelpox, monkeypox variant with ebola thrown in, since the haemorrhagic gene in ebola would potentiate the pox virus and pretty much ensure that all pox was "black pox". Which if you really know your smallpox history, you will know is eminently possible. If not probably. If they really wanted to be crafty, as Alibek said some time back, a topping of anthrax wouldn't go amiss either.

Furthermore, the place it would be sprayed would be in hospitals and public transport systems. Several places at once, and by the time you guys knew anything about it, it would be too late, because half the ER staff would already be patients or in the mortuary themselves.

And you would have little at your disposal, because your reliance is so heavily on drug companies that you would know little else of either alternative or practical means to think outside the square.

Though Dr Thomas Levy might have a pretty good idea where to start.

Quote:
There are risks and benefits to any medical intervention. And, as parents, we are responsible for weighing them for both ourselves and our children.
Too true.

With a total number of over 300,000 medically related deaths a year in the USA, (the combined totals for preventable medical error, nosocomial infections and ADRs,) the medical profession has attendant risks which are far higher than the statistical odds of even a clinical versus a subclinical bout of paralytic polio. Even in this country, when you divide the yearly admissions with numbers of patients who die of preventable error, it comes out at one per 200 hospital admissions, and "damage" ( a loose rather flexible word I think) comes out at 1 per 20 hospital admission.

Given that it takes 1000 subclinical cases to produce the possibility of one paralytic polio case, I'd say that day to day, the risks attendant with the medical profession should be extensively reviewed to sober parents up, wouldn't you?

The risks attendant with the medical profession are definitely a more dangerous risk analysis than most of the "common" childhood diseases.

Having said that, doctors definitely have their pluses and uses. The problem is, that working out where is a minefield in itself.

Quote:
Which way the scale tips is for you do decide....Actually, I'm female.


So I suspected. Most of the lurking male paediatricians here are too scared to open their mouths. Possible with good reason. It would help if you lady doctors might tell them how not to put their foot in it.

Quote:
May we get back to the topic at hand now? I like to understand where people are coming from and I don't "meet" many anti-vax parents.
Yes we can, but I would like to know why it is you want to know? If you don't meet non-vaccinators in your herd, then the experience possibly isn't necessary. And if you work in a system which believes the only reason to listen to those who are a different species, is to work out ways to counter them and smother their lateral thinking, then to say how we feel becomes a risky business. Most of us here adopt the MYOB route when it comes to sharing with doctors out of self-defence. As you can see. All doctors here, Blessed included, will tell you that a certain amount of fencing is in order as an induction process, just to see the mettle of your spine so to speak.

Shame on you Blessed. Do not stick up for your peers. They deserve to go through normal transmission first, just as you did. The degree of normality though, does depend on the degree of foot in mouth disease. You my dear Blessed, unfortunately stuck your foot in rather fast. To your credit, you had the guts to play ball, and it paid off, I think

Quote:
It's nice to know y'all's reasoning so that I can better understand it. (Notice I did not say berate you or fire you from my practice)
Yet. What say, your "ruling body" demands in the future, that you do?
post #131 of 666
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
Herd immunity is an interesting "animal". There are some communities where the rate of vaccination is so low that some diseases seem to be making a comeback.
Which communities?
Which diseases seem to be making a "comeback?"

The only disease I can think of which fits that incorrect description would be pertussis. And if you do say pertussis . . . then you really are a ped and your statement is absolutely perfect for this thread.

I bumped up a pertussis thread for you . . . you'll know which one it is.
post #132 of 666
Ah but LI, you are forgetting all the mumps in the vaccinated kids, and what's worse, the chickenpox in the vaxxed kids that's on the CDC's website, but they are too busy trying to ramp up the Mumps line, to bother to mention that the chickenpox vaccine isn't working either.
post #133 of 666
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
Ah but LI, you are forgetting all the mumps in the vaccinated kids, and what's worse, the chickenpox in the vaxxed kids that's on the CDC's website, but they are too busy trying to ramp up the Mumps line, to bother to mention that the chickenpox vaccine isn't working either.


I'm interested in hearing which diseases the doc believes are making this "comeback."

Should be very interesting.
post #134 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher
Guess we won't be getting answers to our questions anytime soon, since Gene's post cost is down to 7.
post #135 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
Ah but LI, you are forgetting all the mumps in the vaccinated kids, and what's worse, the chickenpox in the vaxxed kids that's on the CDC's website, but they are too busy trying to ramp up the Mumps line, to bother to mention that the chickenpox vaccine isn't working either.
I was going to mention Mumps in the UK.
Evil, evil antivaxers...
post #136 of 666
You need 50 posts to see the vax forum? Hmmm...Maybe we should PM these thread responses to Gene so she can respond. I'm verrrry interested in her response.
post #137 of 666
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyfry
You need 50 posts to see the vax forum?
I don't think so . . . we just had a troll post in here the other day with three previous posts. And newbies have posted genuine questions with less than 50 posts.
post #138 of 666
<<<We tend to dismiss some commonly vaccinated illnesses because we assume that our patient is vaccinated (especially true in the ER where a parent and/or records may not be available).>>>

I don't feel any disease should be dismissed since you can be vaccinated and still get a VPD.

On the other hand it would be useful to know if a person WAS vaccinated since the vaccine does alter the body,and sometimes can cause injury that does not get dx. Not that many doctors acknowledge the various effects vaccines have on the body...other than (always) creating protective immunity
post #139 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
I don't think so . . . we just had a troll post in here the other day with three previous posts. And newbies have posted genuine questions with less than 50 posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessicaSAR
There are only a handful of forums for which you need 50 posts to gain access, and Vaccinations is not one of them. In any case, I don't believe they meant 3 posts and 47 tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene
Last summer, there was a rule change made after complaints of trolling in some posts. In order to post/view some threads, you have to be a member for 60 days (no problem) and post 50+ times (problem).

I'm confused.

I thought the 50-post/60-day thing was only for the TP. Then a couple of months ago I found a thread for Catholic moms in FYT - I invited them to join us in Spirituality, and the newbies said they couldn't post there b/c they didn't have 50 posts yet. And yet, there are ppl posting in the Spirituality forum who do not have 50 posts.

I didn't find anything in the info for this forum that states you must have 50 posts in order to participate in discussions.

What gives?
post #140 of 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by skellbelle
I'm confused.

I thought the 50-post/60-day thing was only for the TP. Then a couple of months ago I found a thread for Catholic moms in FYT - I invited them to join us in Spirituality, and the newbies said they couldn't post there b/c they didn't have 50 posts yet. And yet, there are ppl posting in the Spirituality forum who do not have 50 posts.

I didn't find anything in the info for this forum that states you must have 50 posts in order to participate in discussions.

What gives?
If I recall correctly from when I had just reached 50 posts (about 2 months ago), that 60 days+50 posts gains you access to the forums of spirituality, news and current events and trading post. There might be some others that you can gain access to in NFL with 50+ posts.

That being said, I accidently discovered that you CAN gain access to those forums through a round about way. Hint, hint, hint...this may want to be changed if it bothers the administration. When I did a search for a certain thread and/or looked at the posts of another poster, IF THEY had been in one of those forums then the search engine would bring it up and give you access that way. Am I making sense?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dealing With Your Doctor
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › Dealing With Your Doctor › Name that lie . . . and other scaremongering stories and quotes from your ped