Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much - Page 2

[llamalluv]

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.

Because they are operating under the misguided notion that "real books" (things printed on paper) found in the non-fiction section of a bookstore or library are 100% true.

I have read several books that have been published in just the last 15-20 years that are full of information that we now know to be completely false. I've also read some stuff that is self published that contains obvious misquotes of other published materials which are used as the basis of the arguments presented in the book.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by waiflywaif

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.

BINGO! The University of Google sometimes implies searching the internet without regard to where the information comes from. I recently read a health citation (not in this forum) that came from a pakistani military website! WTF! The person using it did not even consider the source. I think the person posting the info was just using that website but the info was ludicrous and the source very odd. Just because you can find it does not make it true.

I used to teach computer education and I always taught my students that they need to be thorough in their choices on the internet when it comes to reading about the source. They need to determine where it came from and who wrote it and the source should always have the name of the site owner and the main authors and contributors. Any source (********* for example) that does not clearly site its owner and main contributors is suspect, in my book. And, the authors should be reputable and the information valid. There are ways of ascertaining both of these characteristics.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Deborah

For an example of really awful information available on the Internet, please see the CDC parent information pages on vaccination.

No citations at all.

When you visit the parent pages there are links to more information. Anyone who wants to can follow the links and find research. I've pointed this out before. The citations on easy to find.

[BoringTales]

Originally Posted by holly6737

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?

:

[mykdsmomy]

Let's not forget the University of Wikipedia and University of Jeeves :

I have lost all confidence in the almighty college degree. If you went to school for many years and came out with a Masters of Phd then good for you but I dont feel inclined to give you any more respect than a person who has done research on their own from all sides. I have MANY friends who have degrees and I bet every one of them would tell you that what they learned in college doesnt hold a candle to what they've learned through real life experience and research on their own. The internet has opened doors for the average Joe. We are all spoiled now because we dont have to go sit in a library for hours or sit in a classroom for lectures to get the newest studies and literature on a specific subject.

If you know how to read and have half a brain you can see that "science" as we know it has turned into a huge campaign for pharma......it doesnt take a college degree to see that

[mykdsmomy]

Originally Posted by yellowpansy

BINGO! The University of Google sometimes implies searching the internet without regard to where the information comes from. I recently read a health citation (not in this forum) that came from a pakistani military website! WTF! The person using it did not even consider the source. I think the person posting the info was just using that website but the info was ludicrous and the source very odd. Just because you can find it does not make it true.

I used to teach computer education and I always taught my students that they need to be thorough in their choices on the internet when it comes to reading about the source. They need to determine where it came from and who wrote it and the source should always have the name of the site owner and the main authors and contributors. Any source (********* for example) that does not clearly site its owner and main contributors is suspect, in my book. And, the authors should be reputable and the information valid. There are ways of ascertaining both of these characteristics.

But are you implying that you need a college degree to decipher the difference between hogwash and good solid information?

[transformed]

Originally Posted by holly6737

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.

Learning doesnt just come from "school."

Education can take place anyplace at anytime, whether you paid a hefty tuition or you are self taught.

I would not call alot of the information taught at universitys objective, an awful lot of colleges have agendas.

[transformed]

Originally Posted by yellowpansy

BINGO! The University of Google sometimes implies searching the internet without regard to where the information comes from. I recently read a health citation (not in this forum) that came from a pakistani military website! WTF! The person using it did not even consider the source. I think the person posting the info was just using that website but the info was ludicrous and the source very odd. Just because you can find it does not make it true.

.

Just because it was from a Pakastani Military Website doesn't make it false either.

Dont they have scientists in pakastan? :

[HappyPuppy]

Originally Posted by mykdsmomy

But are you implying that you need a college degree to decipher the difference between hogwash and good solid information?

And who's to say we don't? (I mean, *I* don't because I'm a quitter.) My husband has 3 degrees, though none in immunology.

This is an interesting debate. When is someone an expert? What is the point at which someone "knows" something?

I think it's super important that we don't make education even more elitist and exclusive than it already is.



Knowledge is free.

[transformed]

I am of the opinion that the only person who really knows what is going on is God/ess/The Universe, whatever.

We must all look hilarious running around like little ants trying to proove our points. I mostly trust my intuition on this subject because there are alot of very valid arguments on both sides of the vax issue.

[JesseMomme]

mykdsmommy, you made me remember something my dad always used to say, living life as opposed to studying at university was called "The College of Hard Knocks"

[LavenderMae]

Originally Posted by HappyPuppy

I think it's super important that we don't make education even more elitist and exclusive than it already is.



Knowledge is free.

I agree but I have found though (not on google just by observation) that those with degrees seldom feel this way. Not that they have come right out and said they think higher education should be elitist and exclusive, their attidudes about institutionalized education (and the those institutionally educated) just imply as much.
*Disclaimer: of course this doesn't mean all or even most people with degrees feel this way.*

[transformed]

Originally Posted by JesseMomme

mykdsmommy, you made me remember something my dad always used to say, living life as opposed to studying at university was called "The College of Hard Knocks"

Lets hope we dont learn the vax lessons that way.

:

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mykdsmomy

But are you implying that you need a college degree to decipher the difference between hogwash and good solid information?

Of course not. I taught elementary school.

[LavenderMae]

Originally Posted by transformed

Lets hope we dont learn the vax lessons that way.

:

Aren't we already?

[thefragile7393]

Originally Posted by holly6737

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?

Sorry but... All I can do is shake my head. Believe me, there are plenty of places to go to find people who think the same as you...why bother to keep coming here?

And until Science learns how to do a properly conducted study of vax'ed and un'vaxed children to TRUELY find the risks and benefts of each side and do it in a unbiased manner, science will keep insisting the benefits outweigh the risks. They refuse to do the basic "good science," and insist on doing their own studies in a biased way. Tell me, HOW is this scientific? When even the BASIC studies have not been done on vax'ed vs. un-vaxed, how on earth has the safety been "proven" though science? Point me to just one peer-reviewed published study from non-vested interests where vax'ed vs. un-vaxed children were followed for a good period of time. I'll accept whatever the outcome is but just find the study.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by transformed

Learning doesnt just come from "school."

Education can take place anyplace at anytime, whether you paid a hefty tuition or you are self taught.

I would not call alot of the information taught at universitys objective, an awful lot of colleges have agendas.

Of course learning can come from anywhere. A lot of universities are objective, in the eyes of science types like us , as they use the scientific method to discern and decipher information. Most universities have the agenda of teaching. Not sure what you mean beyond that. Unless you are anti-evolution and that is fodder for a thread in another forum.


And, can we please have a sticky that explains why there will never be a study on vaxed versus unvaxed kids so people stop bringing that one up time and again. It is unethical folks! Not going to ever happen.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by transformed

Dont they have scientists in pakastan? :

Of course they have scientists in Pakistan. I am not going into more detail about that in this thread.

[LavenderMae]

Originally Posted by yellowpansy

And, can we please have a sticky that explains why there will never be a study on vaxed versus unvaxed kids so people stop bringing that one up time and again. It is unethical folks! Not going to ever happen.

What's unethical is not properly researching the safety of substances that are put into children's bodies. Calling it unethical to actually study the safety of vaccines is a big ole lame excuse. It won't ever happen because of what it would probably show. There is too much risk in actually finding out vaccines are not safe and that they don't actually work how they are supposed to.
And I hope we will never stop bringing this up because it is a very valid point and I care not how it's pushed to the side as unethical (PLEASE!!!!!).

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Sheacoby

What's unethical is not properly researching the safety of substances that are put into children's bodies. Calling it unethical to actually study the safety of vaccines is a big ole lame excuse. It won't ever happen because of what it would probably show. There is too much risk in actually finding out vaccines are not safe and that they don't actually work how they are supposed to.
And I hope we will never stop bringing this up because it is a very valid point and I care not how it's pushed to the side as unethical (PLEASE!!!!!).

It is unethical to take a medication or immunization and purposely not give it to a population of children for study purposes. This has been discussed before. Scientists are bound by ethical agreements such as this. Therefore, you will not see a study like this and you should stop asking for it.