Vaxing a child with diabetes? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2009, 03:02 PM
 
katheek77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm very confused as to what stand you're taking. Here you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
Here are the scientific studies:

<snip>
"Baltimore, May 27, 2003: The prestigious peer reviewed journal, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism published a study this week by Dr. J. Bart Classen, an immunologist at Classen Immunotherapies, and David Carey Classen, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, providing support for a causal relationship between several common pediatric vaccines and the development of insulin dependent diabetes."
http://www.vaccines.net/newpage113.htm
So, here you are stating that you are using and trusting a study published in a peer-reviewed journal.

However, here you state:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post

In regards to vaccines and whether or not they cause diabetes (or any other harm), I have always relied on commentary and definitely not peer reviewed studies because I cannot trust those scientific journals. Scientific studies are full of fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest, and that is because these scientific journals cannot antagonize their advertisers---the vaccine manufacturers, the pharmaceutical companies---who won't being paying for their advertisements in the magazines anymore if the journal is publishing information that says their products (vaccines and drugs) are harmful. Therefore, Mothering's article that says vaccines cause diabetes means much more to me than any scientific journal's publishing would say. Mothering isn't advertising drugs and vaccines. If you're interested in learning more about the scientific journal peer review fraud, here is a good article that explains it: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...of-Perception/ Read the section "The Mirage of Peer Review".
So, it would seem that, under your logic, the study you cited in the first quote would be unreliable. Which would mean either 1) you *do* believe that studies in peer-reviewed studies are untrustworthy, but you decided to use that study since it agrees with what you believe, thus misleading the other readers or 2) You *do* believe that study is trustworthy, and your dismissal of scientific journals is a tactic you are using because so many other studies show the opposite to what you are arguing.

By your own statement, a study cannot be both trustworthy and published in a scientific journal. I'm not saying you have to believe any study, but, if you're going to dismiss *most* studies as untrustworthy simply because they are published in a scientific journal, it seems disingenuous to then use one of those studies to support your idea.

I am confuzzled.
katheek77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-10-2009, 03:37 PM
 
stiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
On page 301 of the book Saying No To Vaccines by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, she is insinuating that vaccines cause diabetes because under the section of Vaccines and Chronic Disease, she lists the source: Chase HP, et al. Elevated C-reactive protein levels in the development of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004. Oct 53(10):2569-73.

In regards to vaccines and whether or not they cause diabetes (or any other harm), I have always relied on commentary and definitely not peer reviewed studies because I cannot trust those scientific journals. Scientific studies are full of fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest, and that is because these scientific journals cannot antagonize their advertisers---the vaccine manufacturers, the pharmaceutical companies---who won't being paying for their advertisements in the magazines anymore if the journal is publishing information that says their products (vaccines and drugs) are harmful. Therefore, Mothering's article that says vaccines cause diabetes means much more to me than any scientific journal's publishing would say. Mothering isn't advertising drugs and vaccines. If you're interested in learning more about the scientific journal peer review fraud, here is a good article that explains it: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...of-Perception/ Read the section "The Mirage of Peer Review".

Okay. I'm going to try really hard not to break the UA here, but it might be difficult.

Please clarify:

1. The citations from scientific journals YOU are quoting are legit, but the scientific studies WE are quoting are full of lies and fraud, despite being published in the same journal?

2. These peer-reviewed journals that publish information that YOU have quoted are run by their advertisers - and these advertisers are big pharma, in particluar. Do you have a copy of a journal that you could look at to confirm this? I'm still curious as to why they would publish contradictory data, such as the study by Classen and Classen, or the infamous Dr. Wakefield. Is it a smoke-screen of sorts?

3. Let's assume that you're correct and that the publication of data is manipulated by big pHARMa. Are you suggesting that all the authors of all the studies that we've listed in response to yours were also "on the take"? I've got many studies in front of me right now, and while you are correct that some are authored by researchers at the CDC (who I will assume you think are corrupt), many others are authored by university researchers who claim no conflicts of interest. Do you think they are lying? Also, do you think the blind reviewers that read this data are also on the take? I can guarantee you that the last time I reviewed a paper, I did not know who wrote it. Do you think the policy on vaccination papers are somehow different?

N.B. I totally agree that there is a huge problem in evidence-based practice, but more along the lines of null-hypothesis results being lost in the mix, and trendy topics getting front and centre attention. This would, of course, put us at odds again, but I figured I'd state on record that I'd love to see publication reform too.

4. It's okay if you decide that you trust Mothering more than journal articles. Once again, however, I must ask: does this mean that you don't believe Mothering uses science-based evidence for their endorsements, or do you believe they are privvy to special peer-review articles? Is it because they don't have advertisers? Is it because you think the authors they endorse don't have advertisers? Please consider your answer before responding here.

5. In follow-up to point number 4: Is the real problem that you don't trust the views of the researchers, and therefore don't trust their work? Does this mean that you only endorse work by researchers whose overall views you trust? If so, could we start a thread to discuss the honourable and rational views of some of these researchers? In the meantime, I will practice what I preach and go google Blaylock, Wakefield, and Mercola.

6. Final point: Back to the widespread yet (possibly) selective fraud in peer-review. Do you have any empirical evidence you could share on the matter?
stiss is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 03:52 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If vaccines are causing diabetes, scientific journals are not the place to look at for finding proof. I do not trust (or use) scientific journals and their peer reviewed studies because they advertise vaccines, and therefore cannot publish anything bad about vaccines.

The Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism study was for you, not me. You asked to see scientific studies so I thought I'd help you out.

Peer review studies most often do not disclose their many conflicts of interest, such as financial ties between the author of a study and vaccine manufacturer, so its commendable for Classen to disclose his "conflict of interest."

More of my reasons not to trust scientific journals from http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...f-Perception/:

Quote:
A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998)
Quote:
A drug company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed. (Stauber, p 204)
Hopefully this clears up your confusion.

The "Resources" pinned topic thread in this forum has books (such as ******'s and Tenpenny's and probably more) that say vaccines can cause diabetes. And although the authors of these book have their own "conflict of interest" because they profit from the sales of their books--I find them much more reliable than scientific journals, for the above reasons.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:02 PM
 
stiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
If vaccines are causing diabetes, scientific journals are not the place to look at for finding proof. I do not trust (or use) scientific journals and their peer reviewed studies because they advertise vaccines, and therefore cannot publish anything bad about vaccines.

One more time, please, because I'm slow.

If journals can't publish anything bad about vaccines because they advertise vaccines, how did the authors who DID publish articles that say vaccines are bad get published?

Also, among the pile of papers I have in front of me right.this.second (as luck would have it, my comps are on the vaccination debate - both sides!) I can't find ONE that states that vaccines are completely effective or completely safe. I can find plenty that talk about the importance of transparency where these risks are concerned. I've got lots that talk about what those risks are. Do you think that these publications somehow made it under the wire, or do you think that it's all part of the plan by big pHARMa to trick scientists into buying into their journals?

I'll take it that your answers to my questions about the board, the reviewers, the authors, and the editors are that they're all on the take. Seems like the most plausible possibility.

Oh, and I'm still up for a game of "famous researchers and their points-of-view" if you are.
stiss is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:27 PM
 
stiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
Quote:
A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998)
Hopefully this clears up your confusion.


Given that you're still using peer-review to make your case against peer-review...no. It doesn't. I am, however, feeling bad about the horrible trainwreck that became of the OP's thread, so I'll bow out.
stiss is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 04:34 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Stiss, I'll start a new thread for you. "famous researchers and their points-of-view on vaccines" and I'll answer your questions there.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:37 PM
 
Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Where the end of the world began
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
I do not trust (or use) scientific journals and their peer reviewed studies because they advertise vaccines, and therefore cannot publish anything bad about vaccines.
What about journals that don't carry advertising? I'm pretty sure that CID and JID get by on page charges and subscription revenue.
Otto is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 11:13 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post
What about journals that don't carry advertising? I'm pretty sure that CID and JID get by on page charges and subscription revenue.
Advertising is only one reason. There are still conflicts of interest. And the journals still have to abide by their Allopathic medical paradigm, which supports vaccines. Readers would think they are crazy if they started publishing anti-vaccines articles. So the journals are stuck with supporting only that one medical model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stiss View Post
Given that you're still using peer-review to make your case against peer-review...no. It doesn't.
I said I don't trust peer-reviewed studies from scientific medical journals. Not trusting them doesn't mean that I'm against each and every one of them. My point is that they are commonly not as truthful and not as unbiased as most people believe them to be. I'm always open to reading new things, such as these peer reviewed studies, but when there are sources like Tenpenny and ****** who say that vaccines can cause diabetes vs. journals who say vaccines don't cause diabetes, you have to pick the sources that you think are reliable. Peer-reviewed doesn't necessarily make something more reliable.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 08:04 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjenny View Post
Hello everyone- My 5 year old was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes on Wednesday. She has not been vaxed since her 12 month shots. The doctor highly praised vax. and gave me a handful of reasons to get her up to date-especially with flu. My gut says no- I feel like the diabetes is already a symptom of a weakened immune system and to load more into her would just weaken it further. That being said, I'm not 100% sure, I would love some of your opinions, advice or comments. I'm pretty wrung out emotionally over the diagnoses and not thinking with my whole brain. Please help!!! I don't want to do something neglegent and I don't want her at risk. Thanks everyone for your input.
First of all, I am sending a HUGE hug to you and your family, especially your child. My daughter was diagnosed almost 2 years ago, at age 2. We stopped vaccinating her at 12 months also because of a vaccine reaction. I know what you are going through just newly diagnosed and so I don't want to overload you - but we still DO NOT vax. My daughter still, even with D, has never been really sick. She gets a cold maybe once a year. Her Endo pushes the Flu vax, but they will not give the h1n1 to any of the D kids (I was suprised to hear that, actually). We are still not going to vax, although we may do a measles shot next year when she is 4.5 yrs old.

I hope you are doing ok. PM me if you need to talk. The first year is so hard and just give yourself moments to sit back and try to take it all in. I am actually choking up as I write this, remembering the pain I felt in the beginning. It really does get better - you become a pro at the disease! Really!!

Kristin

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 08:06 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALittleBitCrunchy View Post
I have a T1 daughter that just turned 6 - we've been dealing with diabetes since she was 2. It is so, so overwhelming in the beginning. I promise you that it does get easier. I second the recommendation for "Think Like a Pancreas" - excellent resource for living with diabetes.

Illness is so incredibly different in a diabetic child. We're several years in and I still get a little panicky when she has so much as a sniffle. We've had some really rough patches and she's been through a multitude of random illnesses. I've learned that as long as she isn't vomiting and there are no ketones, we're good. In fact, we can now tell when she is getting sick because we see a sustained and consistent drop and spike of a day each for the 2 days preceding the symptoms. Convenient as all get-out, which is why I took my asymptomatic daughter to the doctor today...and he found the raging case of strep throat that has her tonsils coated and *this* close to touching.

As to the vax decision...I don't believe that there is one answer for everyone. We think about it every year and have decided to handle it year-to-year. One year, we opted for a flu vaccine. She'd been through a really rough 2 months at the start of flu season and everything she had led to the hospital and to many, many scary days and nights for all of us. Fearing that the worse was yet to come, we took her in for the shot (well, shots...it's 2 the first year). Never regretted it. That was when she was 4. Every other year (2, 3, 5, 6) we have passed on the vax. This year we are passing on the flu shot and the h1n1 version. We homeschool, the kids are out of daycare and DH and I are not employed in fields with higher than normal levels of exposure. If any of that were different, we might have decided differently.

What does her ped endo say? Ours asked if she had it and we said that she hadn't and that was it, so I asked. They were completely indifferent and never gave me a word of warning or any recommendation to change our minds. Had they been concerned, it would have given me reason to rethink it as I value their opinions based on their experiences.

If you haven't posted this on the SN boards, you might want to try the question there as having special needs can change your outlook on a lot of things. The diabetes is the issue, not the vax, in my opinion, and you might get more insight over there. I happened to see this in new posts but a lot of people may not

and let me add - I agree that that book "Think LIke a Pancreas" is wonderful! I must read for a parent with a child with D. I am constantly referencing back to it.

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 08:26 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Karenwith4;14640928]We choose not to vaccinate so I understand where you are coming from. We've probably read the same literature. And yet my never-vaccinated, vitamin-D-supplemented, breastfed-til-she-was-4, sugar-avoiding, whole-foods-eating, athletic-active-fresh-air-breathing, beautiful daughter still contracted diabetes. "

Wow, Karenwith4, it's like I just read my own profile (except my child with diabetes was breastfed until 2). But I am posting because you mentioned the vitamin D, and I am now on this kick where I feel my daughter was vitamin D deficient, thus the diabetes. But then reading how your daughter was not deficient, maybe my husband is right that it was that vaccine reaction she had when she was a year old. Who knows though, right? Sigh. The vitamin D theory (lack of) would make sense to me though for the amount of children diagnosed with Type-1 right now.

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:03 AM
 
lurve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
about vaccines causing diabetes...i don't know but i think it is entirely possible. my dad is an endrocrinologist and i was talking with him one day about side effects of medicines in general and he said "oh yeah, there about 30 major ones that are known to cause diabetes." and i was floored! he said it so casually. so i think it is entirely possible that vaccines could...

Legal Mama to TWO homebirthed, unschooled, unvaxed, cloth diapered, mei tei loving, still breastfeeding baby girl 1/14/07 and an intact 8 pound 10 ouncer baby boy 4/5/10.
lurve is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:20 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
get with the program

vaccines don't cause anything except long-term disease prevention

everything else is coincidence

now, other drugs might cause diabetes...
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-15-2009, 02:30 AM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurve View Post
about vaccines causing diabetes...i don't know but i think it is entirely possible. my dad is an endrocrinologist and i was talking with him one day about side effects of medicines in general and he said "oh yeah, there about 30 major ones that are known to cause diabetes." and i was floored! he said it so casually. so i think it is entirely possible that vaccines could...
I'm on a medication that is known to cause diabetes...I have to monitor my glucose levels every day.

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:10 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:12 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurve View Post
about vaccines causing diabetes...i don't know but i think it is entirely possible. my dad is an endrocrinologist and i was talking with him one day about side effects of medicines in general and he said "oh yeah, there about 30 major ones that are known to cause diabetes." and i was floored! he said it so casually. so i think it is entirely possible that vaccines could...
Lurve, very interesting stuff and I agree that they could cause diabetes. Something IS causing this "epidemic" of young kids getting it every single week. Go on the childrenwithdiabetes.com forum and every week there's about 4 kids newly diagnosed. And those are just the parents who are posting about it.

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:16 PM
 
Fyrestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 3,766
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kristin1924 View Post
I could say something really rude to you Deborah, but I respect my MDC community. I kindly disagree with your statement.

Since Deborah is one of the more knowledgeable mamas here...and generally very anti vax...I would say that she was being incredibly sarcastic, it just didn't translate

Victim of Birth Rape & Coerced ribboncesarean.gifUnnecesareanribboncesarean.gif What makes people think they can cut up someone else's genitals? nocirc.gif
Fyrestorm is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:22 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Sorry! I was being sarcastic.

Me bad. I'll try to be more obvious or not be sarcastic at all.
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:45 PM
 
lurve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yeah, at first i didn't catch deborah's sacrcasm but i looked at her previous posts and then i knew

i just wanted to add that the way my dad talked about diabetes being a side effect was so casual, so non-chalant. he was like "all medicines have side effects and so what?!" it was just incredibly scary that western medicine doesn't see that the "cure" can be worse than the disease (for the record he is very pro-vax, anti-homebirth, etc so you can see we have our differences!).

Legal Mama to TWO homebirthed, unschooled, unvaxed, cloth diapered, mei tei loving, still breastfeeding baby girl 1/14/07 and an intact 8 pound 10 ouncer baby boy 4/5/10.
lurve is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 02:27 AM
 
Sileree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Sorry! I was being sarcastic.

Me bad. I'll try to be more obvious or not be sarcastic at all.
Put "/sarcasm" at the end.

intactivist.gif  ribbonpb.gif RN student, bellycast.gif birth doula since 2006
Sileree is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 02:19 PM
 
stiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
Advertising is only one reason. There are still conflicts of interest. And the journals still have to abide by their Allopathic medical paradigm, which supports vaccines. Readers would think they are crazy if they started publishing anti-vaccines articles. So the journals are stuck with supporting only that one medical model.


I said I don't trust peer-reviewed studies from scientific medical journals. Not trusting them doesn't mean that I'm against each and every one of them. My point is that they are commonly not as truthful and not as unbiased as most people believe them to be. I'm always open to reading new things, such as these peer reviewed studies, but when there are sources like Tenpenny and ****** who say that vaccines can cause diabetes vs. journals who say vaccines don't cause diabetes, you have to pick the sources that you think are reliable. Peer-reviewed doesn't necessarily make something more reliable.
Therese, you're entitled to you opinion, but if you're open to reading new things, please consider what I'm saying here, once again: many of the peer-reviewed articles that discuss vaccine injury and risk are published in the same journals as the ones that tout their safety and effectiveness. Readers wouldn't think they're "crazy" for publishing evidence of harm from vaccines, so long as the science is good. They also allow different opinions to be published, MUCH LIKE THE ONE YOU POSTED FROM NEJM.

Is there limited transparency in medical research? Yes. Often. It's something that needs reform. There needs to be more independent research performed on the benefits AND RISKS of vaccines, because there's bias on both sides of the debate (I'm looking at you, Andrew Wakefield!) Is there a problem with the peer-review process? Yes. However, peer-review is essential to good science - something that you don't seem to grasp. In short, does peer-review make an article more reliable? Absolutely. You need a blind review to scrutinize your work, to make sure that you've included all the relevant background material, controlled for the confounds to the best of your ability (and discussed those you can't control for), and analyzed your results properly. These reviewers don't get paid for this. They are not revealed to the author. They are not tied to the studies. They don't directly benefit from it's publication, and since there are several reviewers for one study, they certainly don't have full say in the outcome.

You're talking about reliability as an emotive trust that you hold for the researchers based on the values they hold in general. That is not science. It's a perfectly reasonable argument for why YOU feel more comfortable with their advice, but it doesn't speak to their credentials or validity at all. Science is an important part of the debate, whether you trust it or not, and peer-review is probably one of the most important processes in scientific research.

I'm starting to feel like my head is banging on the wall here, so I'm bowing out. Again, having reasons you trust your sources over others is your perogative. However, it's (almost too) easy to call your sources' credibility into question as well, so their science (including blind peer-review) is what gives them any strength of conviction.
stiss is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 02:44 PM
 
GoBecGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
stiss i want to thank you for your posts on this thread. There are certainly those among us who are reading your posts and nodding and shoutig "yes"!
GoBecGo is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 08:10 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,568
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
On peer review:

Unlikely to ask basic questions about the validity of studies--some examples--

studies that compare one vaccine to another vaccine and then assume safety

studies that exclude children with health problems (which would be okay if they government committee didn't then recommend the vaccine for groups of children who were excluded from the study)

and so forth

another big problem with peer review is drug companies getting away with withholding data--reviewers are supposed to judge the validity of a piece of work without seeing the whole package

the Verstraeten study data has just disappeared into a black hole--did the peer reviewers get to see it?

I personally try to steer a middle course. I don't assume that peer review means a good study, but I don't assume that publication in a journal with drug ads means a bad study.
Deborah is online now  
Old 11-16-2009, 10:43 PM
 
amnesiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at the end of the longest line
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread is straying way off topic at this point regarding study validity in general. If this thread is to remain open to discussion, please remain on topic regarding the OP's questions about vaxing or not vaxing a diabetic child.
amnesiac is offline  
Old 11-17-2009, 09:07 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
According to The Vaccine Guide by Randall Neustaedter OMD, it would best be advised not to vaccinate a diabetic child, at least with the MMR vaccine.

page 153 says:

Quote:
Many studies have proven that natural mumps infection causes pancreatitis (infection of the pancreas) and stimulates the onset of diabetes.
And then he sites several studies.

Page 154 says:

Quote:
Mumps vaccination has similarly stimulated the onset of diabetes. The postulated mechanisms of diabetes onset that include autoimmune processes or persistent infection suggest that there may be a prolonged interval between vaccination and the onset of diabetic symptoms.
Then he sites several studies.

For example, one study revealed 20 cases of diabetes occurring after mumps vaccine given during the period 1976 through 1989 in Germany. 12 cases began within 30 days of the vaccination.

He also reveals that 5 cases of diabetes induced by vaccines were reported to VAERS during 1990-1992.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
Old 11-17-2009, 11:42 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Sorry! I was being sarcastic.

Me bad. I'll try to be more obvious or not be sarcastic at all.
OMG, really? That is great news then! I really took it personally... now I get it

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-17-2009, 11:47 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=ThereseReich;14687558]According to The Vaccine Guide by Randall Neustaedter OMD, it would best be advised not to vaccinate a diabetic child, at least with the MMR vaccine.

page 153 says:

And then he sites several studies.

Page 154 says:

Then he sites several studies.

For example, one study revealed 20 cases of diabetes occurring after mumps vaccine given during the period 1976 through 1989 in Germany. 12 cases began within 30 days of the vaccination.


Yes yes yes - I have read this too about a diabetic child NOT getting the MMR. For years now, my friend whose father is a type-1 diabetic since age 7, received a mumps vax or pill back in the 50's and within the same year he was diagnosed with type-1. And this same friend's pediatrician has warned her NOT to have her children get the MMR because the mumps and rubella shots can actually lead to type-1 in sensitive individuals?? I guess it's actually a warning on the vaccine info sheet, which you can read the PDF online.

My husband and I were thinking of giving our child with diabetes the one Measles shot, but never the mumps or rubella shot. I don't even know why we are considering the one measles, but it's been part of our non-vax/vax discussion lately.

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-17-2009, 11:49 PM
 
kristin1924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also, back when my baby was diagnosed, I did research on the vaccine she had a really bad reaction to at age 12 months. Her 4th installment of the hiB/HepB combo shot (back then I fully vaxed, being a new parent who didn't research vaccines until after my daughter had a reaction). I remember when I googled that combo shot that she received AND T1 diabetes, there were links to that also. Sigh.

Kristin, Lactivist and co-sleeping SAHM. My daughter is 6 yrs old, and my son is 22 mos old. Would love baby #3 shy.gif

 

selectivevax.gif  nocirc.gif lactivist.gif dust.gif

kristin1924 is offline  
Old 11-06-2013, 07:49 PM
 
katsmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was going to reply to this until I saw how old this thread was. Op, I'm sure you've made your decision by now and hopefully you've adjusted to having a child with T1 (as best as any one can). Sorry you had to join the club. I noticed there are many mamas here with T1 kids... Is there a 'tribe' for this by any chance? My 4 year old daughter was diagnosed at age 2 and it would be nice to talk to other AP parents about the not-so-AP aspects of managing the disease.
katsmommy is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off