or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much - Page 3

post #41 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
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.
I would venture to say that colleges have a political agenda.

Quote:
Of course they have scientists in Pakistan. I am not going into more detail about that in this thread.
I just don't want research to be discounted because its non-western. Some of the best surgeons in the world are in India. KWIM?
post #42 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
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.
They can use my kids in a study. They arent vaxxed.
post #43 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
I would venture to say that colleges have a political agenda.



I just don't want research to be discounted because its non-western. Some of the best surgeons in the world are in India. KWIM?
I disagree with first statement and agree with second. Rest assured, I am not discounting any scientists just because they are from Pakistan. As it stands, at the reference I made to the Pakistani site, who knows if the scientist was actually Pakistani. It was not clear. The Pakistani site was merely hosting it.
post #44 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
They can use my kids in a study. They arent vaxxed.
I'll pass that along to the next doc I see.
post #45 of 178
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Because you are here on your soapbox of science science science, and yet in high school science we learned that there is a "control" group! Even med trials get placebos, yet this does not happen with vaxes!! Yet it's somehow ethical to shoot kids up with stuff that has not gone through proper scientific trials?!?! I'm supposed to accept something as proof when there IS no proof because it hasn't been done??? Yeah my biology teacher would have cracked up at that one. Thank you for proving the points we make time and time again. Always glad to be of service : And of course, we'll keep asking for studies to be done! It's not going to stop....even if it never happens we'll at least be a thorn in their side.
post #46 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
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.
They can and should ask for volunteers. It is unethical to push vaccinations with out actually finding out if they are safe and effective.

That way of thinking (the first sentence in your post) is so freakin backwards, no medication or vaccine should be given to children until it has been proven to be safe and effective. I wonder who made up that rule!
post #47 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile7393 View Post
Because you are here on your soapbox of science science science, and yet in high school science we learned that there is a "control" group! Even med trials get placebos, yet this does not happen with vaxes!! Yet it's somehow ethical to shoot kids up with stuff that has not gone through proper scientific trials?!?! I'm supposed to accept something as proof when there IS no proof because it hasn't been done??? Yeah my biology teacher would have cracked up at that one. Thank you for proving the points we make time and time again. Always glad to be of service : And of course, we'll keep asking for studies to be done! It's not going to stop....even if it never happens we'll at least be a thorn in their side.
that seems like a : to anyone scientific. Could someone provax and scientific please defend this?
post #48 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile7393 View Post
Because you are here on your soapbox of science science science, and yet in high school science we learned that there is a "control" group! Even med trials get placebos, yet this does not happen with vaxes!! Yet it's somehow ethical to shoot kids up with stuff that has not gone through proper scientific trials?!?! I'm supposed to accept something as proof when there IS no proof because it hasn't been done??? Yeah my biology teacher would have cracked up at that one. Thank you for proving the points we make time and time again. Always glad to be of service : And of course, we'll keep asking for studies to be done! It's not going to stop....even if it never happens we'll at least be a thorn in their side.
Well that just proves a point for us non-university of googlers that you don't really understand science very well.
post #49 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 #50 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktbug View Post
I resent the notion that someone needs a postgraduate degree to take a source into account, as though the unenlightened masses are stumbling around googling things and believing everything they read without looking to see who wrote it and who paid for it.

I mean, you guys don't skulk around the Spirituality board telling people their conclusions are invalid, right? So why do it here?
First of all, did you read my post where I stated that elementary school kids can be taught to figure out if website is valid or not? Secondly, spirituality is faith-based and not scientific or logical. Science is based on logic and reason. Why would we argue science in the spirituality board? That would be illogical. :
post #51 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed View Post
that seems like a : to anyone scientific. Could someone provax and scientific please defend this?
Here you go. Happy reading.


http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/

On Being a Scientist


COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1995
post #52 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
Well that just proves a point for us non-university of googlers that you don't really understand science very well.

You just proved something too.
post #53 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
Well that just proves a point for us non-university of googlers that you don't really understand science very well.
Well, put up, then. If you understand it so well, why don't you enlighten all us poor saps who just don't understand? I mean, you taught grade schoolers how to cull bad information from good, didn't you? It shouldn't be too much of a stretch for you to explain in layman's terms why vaccines aren't tested in double-blind placebo controlled trials and why it would be unethical to do so. I mean, explain it, don't just call people stupid.

And my whole point about the spirituality board was that, for good or ill, some people have closely held beliefs about vaccinations (on both sides of the issue, clearly ), and for you to come on this board and just poop all over everyone who didn't do their research the way you think they should have, or worse, to assume that you even KNOW what kind of research they did, is akin to going over to Spirituality and taking issue with all the born-again christians, telling them that they're misinterpreting the bible.

Because, after all, it really is kind of all about how you interpret it.
post #54 of 178
I always think there is a correlation between someone's spelling, especially when they readily acknowledge in public threads that they do not have much education, and their understanding of scientific information. Not always as some highly intelligent, well-educated persons are bad spellers simply because they type hurriedly. But, others are poor spellers because they simply do not know better. Those types need to educate themselves on all fronts. Then, perhaps both their understanding of the science as well as their spelling will improve.
post #55 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
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.
You were wrong then and you're still wrong.
(From the WWHIWSV parent's page)


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

Quote:
In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.
post #56 of 178
Some people just suck at spelling/grammer<----- heeeheee.
I am always more interested in the content of what one writes or says than any mistakes they made while writing or saying it.
post #57 of 178
Look. Let's steer it back to the topic at hand, shall we?

Yellowpansy, would you care to tell the University of Googlers what would be wrong with a vaccine study which gave the control group, let's say, an adjuvant-free version of the vaccine being tested? Obviously, we can't go stepping on medical ethics to give the control group sterile saline (my GOD! what if they all died of mumps!?), but what would be wrong with an adjuvant-free control shot?

Just for sh*ts and giggles, you know.
post #58 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
You were wrong then and you're still wrong.
(From the WWHIWSV parent's page)


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm
two clicks later and I got this

http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/pu...blications.htm

easy as pie.
post #59 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowpansy View Post
I always think there is a correlation between someone's spelling, especially when they readily acknowledge in public threads that they do not have much education, and their understanding of scientific information. Not always as some highly intelligent, well-educated persons are bad spellers simply because they type hurriedly. But, others are poor spellers because they simply do not know better. Those types need to educate themselves on all fronts. Then, perhaps both their understanding of the science as well as their spelling will improve.
Ahhhh. If you're a poor speller, it's possible that you lack knowledge of everything. If you're a good speller, you're highly intelligent and well-educated. Got it.




I'm concerned that some pro-vax folks are so stuck on this "science" thing, and yet have not addressed simple concerns like:

why does my 6'3", 280lb husband get the same dose of any vaccine that an 8lb baby would?

why can't we put the funding into more effectively treating childhood disease?

why can't infants (and adults) be titered for immunity? (Wouldn't that be an easy way to effectively test a large population for an idea of exactly how effective vaccines are? AND eventually eliminate the need for boostering?)

why does my child need to be put at risk for permanent, life-long health problems or death when modern medicine can now easily and quickly treat childhood disease to prevent complications?



Dr. Jean Dodds, the foremost vaccine expert (IMO) in veterinary medicine is working to do a huge rabies study that involves exposing both unvaccinated and vaccinated animals to rabies to test the efficacy. Now, it seems that such a trial in humans would indeed be unethical, however, is it necessary? Why can't they do a study of vaccinated children and titer them over a long period of time? Wouldn't this give us much-needed information regarding the number of boosters require, the true efficacy, etc?
post #60 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Science Mom View Post
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.
Pages like the CDC parents pages and quackwatch are sort of the provax equivalent. There are people on both sides presentng themselves as authorities and telling tall tales.


Quote:
There are also numerous instances of cherry-picking data or abstract-mining that are inappropriately used or interpreted.
And again...that isn't just an issue for one side.

Quote:
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
I agree.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much