Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much

post #1 of 178
Thread Starter 
How often do those who question vaccines hear, "Oh, you must have gotten that off the Internet" in a condescending way? It's almost a reflex for those within the vaccine movement when they hear information confronting their paradigm.

So I can go on the Internet and read almost any newspaper from around the world, as long as there is an English version, or go find just about any medical journal information, sometimes with an online subscription, but somehow that is not ok and it is just stuff from the Internet. I can read what doctors trained in traditional medical schools have to say but that is questionable at best because it was found on the Internet. Why would those within the movement mock the freeflow of an unlimited supply of information?

Obviously the first answer is they do not agree with the information, but it's deeper than that. Information is the key to control. Those who have access to the information possess a significant amount of control over those who do not. They can interpret as they see fit and they can chose what others can know or better yet, not know. It creates a sense of superiority. It helps to maintain the hierarchy that doctors and those who dictate vaccine program ideology like in place. We have to come to them for answers. But now we can find our own answers and walk into a doctors' office knowing more than they do on a particular subject, such as vaccines. That completely screws up the hierarchy and element of control and that angers some people hence the nasty reactions some people get from their beloved physicians when questioning the holy grail of medicine.

There are those who would love nothing more than to create an Internet II. A controlled Internet that is "officially" approved. Which obviously means approved information. The vaccine movement is under serious threat and it is a HUGE system with many tentacles. It will not go easy into that good night. It will be interesting to see what public relations tactics the movement will employ. Of course ridicule is always the best tactic but when that doesn't work it will be all about the possible threats to our health from the dangerous Internet.

Information should never create fear. People have a right to hear or read whatever they want. It's only those who have something to lose, such as their belief system, that go on the attack. We all have the information now, perhaps for the 1st time in history. What an amazing time to exist. Let's see what kind of legislation the information controllers try to push through to combat that. Let's read the articles that attack the Internet and those who learn from the University of Google with discernment and interest.
post #2 of 178
If you post something from a peer-reviewed, non-throwaway medical journal I couldn't care less if you read it on the internet, on paper, or on the side of a building. In that case it probably deserves to be considered.

Many of the "Googled" assertions that people come up with, on any topic, are not good evidence. They are either from specific websites with a specific agenda, or from things that are just one person's opinion. And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
post #3 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiflywaif View Post
If you post something from a peer-reviewed, non-throwaway medical journal I couldn't care less if you read it on the internet, on paper, or on the side of a building. In that case it probably deserves to be considered.

Many of the "Googled" assertions that people come up with, on any topic, are not good evidence. They are either from specific websites with a specific agenda, or from things that are just one person's opinion. And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
You could say the same for pro vax sites too couldn't you?

Sheal
post #4 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiflywaif View Post
If you post something from a peer-reviewed, non-throwaway medical journal I couldn't care less if you read it on the internet, on paper, or on the side of a building. In that case it probably deserves to be considered.

Many of the "Googled" assertions that people come up with, on any topic, are not good evidence. They are either from specific websites with a specific agenda, or from things that are just one person's opinion. And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
For an example of really awful information available on the Internet, please see the CDC parent information pages on vaccination.

No citations at all.
post #5 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiflywaif View Post
If you post something from a peer-reviewed, non-throwaway medical journal I couldn't care less if you read it on the internet, on paper, or on the side of a building. In that case it probably deserves to be considered.

Many of the "Googled" assertions that people come up with, on any topic, are not good evidence. They are either from specific websites with a specific agenda, or from things that are just one person's opinion. And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
Thank you.
post #6 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
For an example of really awful information available on the Internet, please see the CDC parent information pages on vaccination.

No citations at all.

Thank you!
post #7 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot View Post
How often do those who question vaccines hear, "Oh, you must have gotten that off the Internet" in a condescending way? It's almost a reflex for those within the vaccine movement when they hear information confronting their paradigm.
My mother is my own personal example. She seems to enjoy the internet for email fwds and majong only. Goodness forbid I get her to look at anything, because "it's on the internet".

Quote:

Information should never create fear.
Perfect. Well said!
post #8 of 178
Scattershoot, you are completely right.
post #9 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
They are either from specific websites with a specific agenda, or from things that are just one person's opinion. And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
We live in a subjective universe. Everything is filtered through a sieve of perception. The existence of EVERY website is the reflection of someone's agenda. This is a very common attack tactic of those who do not like the University of Google. What vaccine websites that promote the usage of vaccines do not have an agenda?

"Just one person's opinion" is how almost every discovery of humankind manifested.

Peer-review works great for those who research that which is accepted, but when one goes off the beaten path, such as Peter Duesberg (perhaps the world's leading retrovirologist) did with AIDS, one discovers quite quickly how limited, biased and destructive to learning new ideas the process can be.
post #10 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiflywaif View Post
And "proving" that something is true because there are a lot of hits from a search on the topic is completely useless.
That's definitely true. And there are about 1,045,890 hits about how safe vaccines are, etc etc, and I bet I could say the same for the other side of the fence. I have not based my choices on hit counts, and I really don't know of anyone who has.
post #11 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseMomme View Post
That's definitely true. And there are about 1,045,890 hits about how safe vaccines are, etc etc, and I bet I could say the same for the other side of the fence. I have not based my choices on hit counts, and I really don't know of anyone who has.
I agree with this. Hit counts definitely show interest though, and certain people do not want anyone interested in the topic of vaccine dangers. Why would people not want others to have complete access all ideas, opinions, information on a certain topic, such as vaccines. If you have nothing to hide, then who cares what people look into.
post #12 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot View Post
We live in a subjective universe. Everything is filtered through a sieve of perception. The existence of EVERY website is the reflection of someone's agenda. This is a very common attack tactic of those who do not like the University of Google. What vaccine websites that promote the usage of vaccines do not have an agenda?

"Just one person's opinion" is how almost every discovery of humankind manifested.

Peer-review works great for those who research that which is accepted, but when one goes off the beaten path, such as Peter Duesberg (perhaps the world's leading retrovirologist) did with AIDS, one discovers quite quickly how limited, biased and destructive to learning new ideas the process can be.
Can we please stop using the phrase "university of google"? The University of Google does not exist. It's insulting and mocks, really, those of us who have attended actual Universities. The University of Google is not *at all* on par with, say, The University of North Carolina. You don't take classes at 'google'. You don't earn a degree at 'google'. "Google" is not a respected institution of learning. "Google" doesn't send you a diploma with your name on it, okay? There is no University of Google. Thanks.

Secondly, I truly believe most of you will just never get it. I mean, honestly. I'm pro-science and so that's a vital difference in where each of us are coming from. I respect formal education and those who have been formally educated. I respect peer-reviewed articles, for the most part. There is junk science and there is good science. I don't believe there is a world-wide conspiracy to inject children with poisons for the financial benefit of several major companies. I don't believe in homeopathy. I don't believe in special energetics that guide bacteria. I *firmly* believe in germ theory. I don't believe in crystal children or indigo children. We're just coming from two seperate universe's really. It makes it difficult to have a discussion about something like this.

ETA: About your last point, even incredibly smart people can go crazy. For example, I think it's safe to say Peter Duesberg has gone a little off the deep end, no?
post #13 of 178
I think your post brings up some great points, OP. There is valid information on the internet. When I was at my university, we were allowed to use the internet for research papers, as long as things were properly cited. I think that proves some kind of point.

And Holly, I just don't understand why you're here if you obviously think that "we" are a lost cause? Surely you have something better you could be doing with your time.
post #14 of 178
I loath censorship so I am fully supportive of an unregulated internet. This thread implies that Google is some kind of threat to our paradigm. I don't believe that is even remotely accurate for using sources of information such as ********* and mercola and the like make anti-vax arguements all too easy to refute. There are also numerous instances of cherry-picking data or abstract-mining that are inappropriately used or interpreted. It is not a matter of hating the information obtained on a free interweb, it is the use of it that is mind-numbing. I think the issue is that information on both sides of the debate is often not easily disentangled by the general laypublic and too much pseudo-science is readily absorbed to support one's persuasion.

SM
post #15 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737 View Post

I *firmly* believe in germ theory.

So do I.

I also don't believe that my child should pay with his or her health for anything, and in this case, we think the evidence leans toward the idea that our kids' long-term health is the price for avoiding short-term, treatable childhood disease.

Those who are skeptical at best regarding vaccine safety aren't all shunning traditional Western medicine, convinced there's a conspiracy, etc.

For my husband and I, we don't like the risk/benefit as it applies directly to our family. The pro-vax movement can throw as much science as they want at us, but until there are fewer children with vaccine reactions than total population effected by the diseases in question, we can't see how vaccinating our kids makes sense.

(This is merely to illustrate that there are so many different people for and opposed to vaccines and that they all have their own, different sets of reasons for their positions.)
post #16 of 178
I would just like to remind people that the concept of the internet comunity is all relative, a reflection of your own experience IRL and not to be so condescending about "what you know".

I can assure you there are mothers here who have medical degrees, PhD's, and ivy educations as well as other mothers who didn't go to college.


My mom always raised to accept that there are always women that are prettier, richer, thinner, and more educated.

It is unwise for any of us to assume we are the smartest in "this room".

And p.s. pro-science, pro-evolution non-vaxing moms here can fill a stadium.
post #17 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by xmasbaby7 View Post
And p.s. pro-science, pro-evolution non-vaxing moms here can fill a stadium.
:
post #18 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737 View Post
It doesn't "greatly upset" me, I just think it's a falsity.
I think it's a laugh. I can't help but chuckle at the goofy homage to google, since I see it as the the best search engine out there. I pretty much read any link anyone else posted b/c, in the medieval days of the internet, I felt useless with searches until I finally braved trying out google, and no longer felt "search dumb" b/c I'd actually pull up relevant stuff, about anything.
post #19 of 178
FWIW, the term "University of Google" was originally an insulting term for someone with no "real-life" or "formal" education who had researched something heavily online.

I don't think anyone's bragging about getting all/most of their information online, just being a little tongue-in-cheek regarding their "credentials."
post #20 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyPuppy View Post
FWIW, the term "University of Google" was originally an insulting term for someone with no "real-life" or "formal" education who had researched something heavily online.

I know right, you'd think she'd actually like the term then.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much