Birth and Vaccines - Page 6

[applejuice]

Yes, DES.

The women who were able to have children and have not died from their exposure to DES now can worry about their grandchildren.

The mothers who took the drug had a higher than the rest of the population of acquiring breast cancer. Remember DES was used as the "dry-up" shot for mothers who did not want to breastfeed.

The sons had a higher chance of getting testicular cancer.

The DES daughters had abnormal alignment of their reproductive tract and higher than average chance of miscarriage, and of getting cancer or adenosis, a precancerous condition. This is not acceptable.

DES was also used as the morning after pill for a long time.

And now the grandchildren...a perpetual cycle of patients for life.

I understand that clomid can cause the same thing; is that true?

My mom still has the prescription she received for me in 1953.

[aira]

Wow, this OP discussion sure dropped off...

Is anyone going to come along and refute the breastfeeding studies as irrelevant because of the self-selection? Offer a reason why vax studies couldn't be constructed the same way? I'm actually only even checking MDC at this point to see this thread.

Bummer. Guess I'll go back to my happy little corner...

[suschi]

Originally Posted by holly6737

I go with what the literature says. Not what any doctor or any "let's see how alternative I can be" website, midwife, mother, random internet people, pastor, therapist, trader joe's employee, or whomever says. (<- That was a generalized statement and not necessarily about any one person, forum, website, trader joes employee, etc.) The literature supports natural childbirth and the literature supports my decision to selectively vaccinate. It's not about "going against the grain", "defying allopathic medicine", "dead fish go with the flow", my emotional response to anecdotal stories, etc. It's about what the science supports and the SCIENCE supports natural childbirth and vaccinations. If you don't keep going back to the literature, you find yourself in a place where you're making decisions based on previous decisions- 'Well, I CD, I homebirth, I don't circ. I guess that means I can't vax either...". No. That's not an informed choice- IN MY OPINION.

The problem with depending on published literature ....

it once used to support circ

now it doesn't

so published literature changes, and wouldn't one feel bad if they went ahead and made a decision that went against all instincts because they were relying on published (scientific) literature and ignored their instincts, only to find out later that the science was wrong and changed the recommendations...and the instincts they ignored were right on target.

Just something to think about for those who rely on said literature.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by suschi

published literature changes

That is the really great thing about science, in my opinion - it is in a perpetual state of self-correction, changing to incorporate new evidence as needed.

Originally Posted by suschi

wouldn't one feel bad if they went ahead and made a decision that went against all instincts because they were relying on published (scientific) literature and ignored their instincts, only to find out later that the science was wrong and changed the recommendations...

I would rather find out I was wrong and be able to do the right thing next time, than never realize I was wrong to begin with.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by applejuice

Yes, DES.

The women who were able to have children and have not died from their exposure to DES now can worry about their grandchildren.

The mothers who took the drug had a higher than the rest of the population of acquiring breast cancer. Remember DES was used as the "dry-up" shot for mothers who did not want to breastfeed.

The sons had a higher chance of getting testicular cancer.

The DES daughters had abnormal alignment of their reproductive tract and higher than average chance of miscarriage, and of getting cancer or adenosis, a precancerous condition. This is not acceptable.

DES was also used as the morning after pill for a long time.

And now the grandchildren...a perpetual cycle of patients for life.

I understand that clomid can cause the same thing; is that true?

My mom still has the prescription she received for me in 1953.

GREAT point. My mother was a DES baby, as well as my aunts. They ALL had reproductive issues-cysts, endometriosis, breast problems, deformed uteri, etc. And I was lucky enough to inherit that. My surgeon believes it played a major role in my grapefruit sized fibroid I had at age 16.

[mykdsmomy]

Originally Posted by Trillian

That is the really great thing about science, in my opinion - it is in a perpetual state of self-correction, changing to incorporate new evidence as needed.

Science yes....Pharma, not so much. When pharma is funding research then obviously the results can be skewed.

[tayndrewsmama]

Originally Posted by suschi

The problem with depending on published literature ....

it once used to support circ

now it doesn't

so published literature changes, and wouldn't one feel bad if they went ahead and made a decision that went against all instincts because they were relying on published (scientific) literature and ignored their instincts, only to find out later that the science was wrong and changed the recommendations...and the instincts they ignored were right on target.

Just something to think about for those who rely on said literature.

I think there are a large amount of people who want to be told what to do and therefore when things don't turn out, they don't feel like it was their fault.

[suschi]

Originally Posted by Trillian

That is the really great thing about science, in my opinion - it is in a perpetual state of self-correction, changing to incorporate new evidence as needed.

I don't think it's so great when it involves something that can't be "fixed" because they made a mistake or found new evidence that changed the direction.

Originally Posted by Trillian

I would rather find out I was wrong and be able to do the right thing next time, than never realize I was wrong to begin with.

For some there is no next time.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by suschi

I don't think it's so great when it involves something that can't be "fixed" because they made a mistake or found new evidence that changed the direction.

For some there is no next time.

The same can be said of non-science-based decisions. Any decision you make has a chance of being wrong, perhaps even catastrophically so.

Personally I feel that science offers the both the best bet for a) being right the first time and for b) recognizing and correcting an error if there was one.

[suschi]

Originally Posted by Trillian

The same can be said of non-science-based decisions. Any decision you make has a chance of being wrong, perhaps even catastrophically so.

Personally I feel that science offers the both the best bet for a) being right the first time and for b) recognizing and correcting an error if there was one.

Along with changing science, one day we hear something is safe, the next day it isn't there is the problem re: what science gets published and/or manipulated, see The Truth About the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell, M.D. former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine

It's great that you have such trust and faith in science, but personally, I have far more faith in my intuition, aka gut feelings.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Trillian

The same can be said of non-science-based decisions. Any decision you make has a chance of being wrong, perhaps even catastrophically so.

Personally I feel that science offers the both the best bet for a) being right the first time and for b) recognizing and correcting an error if there was one.

To see science this way--you have to reading the sanitized version. Science has been wrong over and over again. And medical science has a worse record than many other areas of science. Perhaps because it is such a touchy area, involving life and death and power and the ability to define what does and does not exist.

Some examples in the area of childbirth, breastfeeding, introduction of solids to infants:

Semmelweis--women were still dying of childbirth fever in the U.S. in the 20s.

Formula feeding was promoted as "scientific." And how many breastfed babies have been compared to a scientifically developed growth chart which was based on the normal growth rates of formula fed tots? How many babies died and still die, because their moms think that it is okay to feed formula? Just a matter of choice (and I know sometimes there is no alternative, I am talking about mothers who could breastfeed but don't because the science exists but is kept behind the curtain).

Solids for babies. When my daughter was born in 1967, doctors and baby books recommended starting to feed solids at somewhere between 9 days (no, this is not a typo) and two weeks. Supposedly, this was based on scientific research.

Lately, there has been some research published in major journals, claiming that all women should be induced if they don't go into labor by some pre-determined point in their pregnancies. Is this good science, or just catering to OBs enthusiasm for managed birth?

I'm so glad my daughter did her own research and made her own choices about where to give birth, who to have as a birth attendant, what sort of tests she wanted to have during her pregnancy (no ultrasounds for example), whether or not to breastfeed and so forth. Assuming that the official line on this sort of thing is science based and safe is a very risky approach.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by Deborah

To see science this way--you have to reading the sanitized version. Science has been wrong over and over again.

I definitely have more than the "sanitized version" of science. Yes, science has been wrong. And the reason we know it was wrong is because old results have since been replaced by newer ones supported by more and better evidence. Such is the nature of progress. Non-science (tradition, instinct, etc.), on the other hand, has little or no means for ever realizing it is wrong and making corrections.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by Trillian

I definitely have more than the "sanitized version" of science. Yes, science has been wrong. And the reason we know it was wrong is because old results have since been replaced by newer ones supported by more and better evidence. Such is the nature of progress. Non-science (tradition, instinct, etc.), on the other hand, has little or no means for ever realizing it is wrong and making corrections.

I don't think it is quite that simple. When the Tobacco industry hauled all those doctors and scientists in front of senate committees with proof that tobacco did not hurt smokers..was that simply they didn't have the science? Or was money in the way of truth? Or was it just a case that they were right and tobacco smoke was good for the body? Camels, anyone?


and on another note--
Then there are the old (non scientific) wives' tails..that later are given a nod by scientists for making sense --scientifically speaking. but of course they had been in practice for years prior without the science seal of approval.

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by Trillian

I definitely have more than the "sanitized version" of science. Yes, science has been wrong. And the reason we know it was wrong is because old results have since been replaced by newer ones supported by more and better evidence. Such is the nature of progress. Non-science (tradition, instinct, etc.), on the other hand, has little or no means for ever realizing it is wrong and making corrections.

However, I didn't argue in favor of non-science. I didn't argue in favor of tradition or instinct, either.

What I did was point out that science has been wrong. That sometimes it takes many years to figure out where it went wrong and make a correction. As others have pointed out, science can also go wrong due to inappropriate influence and manipulation of data, as is currently happening with childbirth.

What I was actually arguing is that it is appropriate for people to do their own research in the available science and make their own choices, based on their own thinking, their own situation and their own knowledge.

For example, when I decided to go against the "scientific" recommendation for early solid foods, based my decision not on instinct or tradition, but on the material I read from the La Leche League, who presented a competing point of view. LLL at that time was considered a fairly extreme approach to childraising, and, as I said, the mainstream stance was that early solids were important and necessary.

Would my daughter have been better off if I had gone with the official science? Of course not.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by Trillian

I definitely have more than the "sanitized version" of science. Yes, science has been wrong. And the reason we know it was wrong is because old results have since been replaced by newer ones supported by more and better evidence. Such is the nature of progress. Non-science (tradition, instinct, etc.), on the other hand, has little or no means for ever realizing it is wrong and making corrections.

You're right. Tradition is never corrected. That's why many of us in the US still have slaves. And we also still slap babies on the butt to get them crying after birth. Wait. Was that partially science? Wrong science, but what was believed at the time.

Why do you believe that tradition and instinct should never be followed or favored over ever-changing science? Tradition and instinct are intrinsically linked to science to begin with. You use scientific traditions, protocol, passed on knowledge to do your research. Sometimes that is questioned and new things are learned. But sometimes that's the best way.

I would never follow the current science blindly. If anything, that's a slap in the face to science, IMO. It's about learning and progress. Question everything to get to the truth.

Sorry about the rambling. I slept poorly.

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by kittywitty

Why do you believe that tradition and instinct should never be followed or favored over ever-changing science?

To be fair, I am not reading it that way. Maybe I am carrying this over from another thread, but I am reading Trillian to say that these things are distinct from science, not necessarily inferior. I think there is an implication from some posters that the science favoring vaccines, as it currently stands, should trump other factors in the decision to vaccinate, but not in all situations.

Clearly, I don't agree, but I feel like I am seeing this distinction in some places. Am I mistaken?

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

To be fair, I am not reading it that way. Maybe I am carrying this over from another thread, but I am reading Trillian to say that these things are distinct from science, not necessarily inferior. I think there is an implication from some posters that the science favoring vaccines, as it currently stands, should trump other factors in the decision to vaccinate, but not in all situations.

Clearly, I don't agree, but I feel like I am seeing this distinction in some places. Am I mistaken?

I think that I misinterpreted. But I have seen that sentiment on here. My question is why they should be so seperate when obviously they influence each other?

[holly6737]

Many of us in the US still own slaves? Who are you speaking of? I've never heard of this (other than the odd case every year or so of an immigrant family carrying a slave over).

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by wallacesmum

To be fair, I am not reading it that way. Maybe I am carrying this over from another thread, but I am reading Trillian to say that these things are distinct from science, not necessarily inferior. I think there is an implication from some posters that the science favoring vaccines, as it currently stands, should trump other factors in the decision to vaccinate, but not in all situations.

Basically yes. There is a time and place for everything. When it comes to deciding what to serve for Christmas dinner, I go with tradition, not nutritional science. When it comes to deciding who to try to befriend, I go with instinct, not statistics. But there are many things which I feel are beyond the applicable scope of these approaches because they are too new and often non-intuitive, vaccinations included.

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Assuming that the official line on this sort of thing is science based and safe is a very risky approach.

Originally Posted by Tracy

I don't think it is quite that simple. When the Tobacco industry hauled all those doctors and scientists in front of senate committees with proof that tobacco did not hurt smokers..was that simply they didn't have the science?

Originally Posted by Deborah

What I was actually arguing is that it is appropriate for people to do their own research in the available science and make their own choices, based on their own thinking, their own situation and their own knowledge.

It doesn't sound to me like either of you are actually arguing against using science as a basis for decision-making, just against interference by agencies such as big business and government. I think that is quite reasonable, and one should always look at the actual data, not just the "party line."

It is also true that bias can affect even the basic results of investigations, but this is why replication of results is a cornerstone of science. Unless everyone is subject to the same influences, biased results will ultimately be exposed and corrected.