Let's start a list of agreed on research sources - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2012, 10:19 AM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,482
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)

This might be difficult.  Let's see if we can compile a list of sources that both sides feel are valid. (For the purposes of the debate threads only - you are free to link to whatever the heck you want (with the exception of whale.to) on all the rest of the threads)

 

Let's set down some ground rules: 

*Offer up links to those sites/sources you consider valid (Please remember no whale.to links!)

*All sources will be considered - at first.  But you will have to counter folks claims of bias/irrelevance/inaccuracy to keep them on the list

*You have to post something other than a one liner about another poster's source. You cannot post "that site is biased", or "That site is perfect." without some further discussion of why, preferably including examples. winky.gif

*Once a site has been confirmed I will add it to the OP, so we have a running list of sites that both sides of the debate feel are useful.

 

*No name calling, no dismissive language, no discussing other posters.  

 

If you can't participate accordingly, I reserve the right to lock you out of the thread.  So choose your words carefully, be respectful no matter how much you disagree, and reread everything you post prior to posting it.


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-06-2012, 12:42 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

what makes a good site?

 

Here are a few things to consider:

 

Bias.  Is it possible to get away from bias?  Should we even want to ?  (we all have a POV, after all)

 

Conflict of interest - particularly financial.  Is some financial conflict of interest OK?  What kind?

 

Sites - any site that does not link to its sources is a load of dung in my opinion.  

 

Vileness/nastiness to the other side:  I have seen some pro-vax sites that are fairly snarky and hateful towards non-vaxxers.  Perhaps there are some non-vax sites that pro-vaxxers feel are over the top in tone as well. Are snark and hatefulness acceptable?

purslaine is offline  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:58 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

Does this list of "acceptable" websites mean that we are unable to link to websites that are not on the list? (I don't mean whale.to). Sounds like censorship to me.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-06-2012, 01:17 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Does this list of "acceptable" websites mean that we are unable to link to websites that are not on the list? (I don't mean whale.to). Sounds like censorship to me.

yeah, I agree.

 

I think a discussion on what makes a good source is a great idea!

 

I do not think we should take it as far as "this site is allowed and this site isn't."  

 

Perhaps it is acceptable if it is done just on the debate thread for the purpose of moving the conversation forward, but I am not so sure.

 

edited to add:  I just reread the Op.  The purpose seems to be finding sites both sides think have validity, but does not discuss if we can link to sites that do not pass the "acceptability" test.  AdinaL?

purslaine is offline  
Old 07-06-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Does this list of "acceptable" websites mean that we are unable to link to websites that are not on the list? (I don't mean whale.to). Sounds like censorship to me.

yeah, I agree.

 

I think a discussion on what makes a good source is a great idea!

 

I do not think we should take it as far as "this site is allowed and this site isn't."  

 

Perhaps it is acceptable if it is done just on the debate thread for the purpose of moving the conversation forward, but I am not so sure.

 

edited to add:  I just reread the Op.  The purpose seems to be finding sites both sides think have validity, but does not discuss if we can link to sites that do not pass the "acceptability" test.  AdinaL?

 

A thread was started in the research forum on "good" sources. Frankly, I don't think given the wide range of beliefs of posters, it is possible to come an agreement on what is valid and what is not. I can see that a list of this kind will serve to water down the information available to members. Surely, people are able to put information through their own "truth" filter and come to an opinion.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-06-2012, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,482
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)

This is ONLY for the debate threads.  Not for the whole thing.  Put down the censorship flag.


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
Old 07-06-2012, 03:16 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdinaL View Post

This is ONLY for the debate threads.  Not for the whole thing.  Put down the censorship flag.

Maybe you can clarify this in your OP.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 07-06-2012, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,482
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)

Done and done. :)


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
Old 07-07-2012, 04:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

I don't think it's possible to come to such an agreement.

 

Those who defend the current vaccine schedule point to the CDC, CHoP, and ACIP as valid sources. They scoff at the other side's sources because they are not part of mainstream science.

 

Those who question/criticize the current vaccine schedule point to NVIC, International Medical Council on Vaccines, NaturalNews, Mercola, and AgeofAutism as valid sources--in part, because those sites actually publish news that the other side never mentions, such as the recent decision by the Italian government to admit that the MMR caused a case of autism, or the recent lawsuit against Merck by 2 of its former virologists for fraud, or the indictment of a former CDC employee (Poul Thorssen, who was heavily involved in the research that supposedly disproved a vaccine/autism link) for fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering.  

 

At this point, neither side can claim to be completely unbiased.

 

The CDC, CHoP, and ACIP have far too many high-ranking employees who have had serious financial conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry; there is no way you can pretend that there is no bias there.  Paul Offit and Julie Geberding are only two examples.   There are many, many others. Paul Offit is selling books about his view of the vaccine controversy--that's every bit as much of a financial conflict of interest as the one Dr. Sears is accused of for publishing his book recommending a less extreme vaccine schedule.  Julie Geberding was head of the CDC during the time when the pediatric vaccine schedule had its biggest expansion; she left the CDC to become president of Merck's Vaccine Division.  Nobody can pretend that there's no conflict of interest there.

 

Age of Autism and  IMCoV were formed by parents of vaccine-injured children, so, yes, they can't pretend that they are not biased, even though they are not looking for financial gain, but to prevent such injuries to happen to other children.

 

Mercola sells health care products, so, in a way, he is competing with the pharmaceutical industry, and that is a bias.

 

I don't claim to be unbiased.  My children were injured by vaccines, and their injuries were eventually recognized by mainstream medical doctors.  While I have no financial incentive here, I have an emotional one: I want to correct what I perceive as a gross perversion of the truth by the pharmaceutical industry that is carried out by mainstream media, and believed by most people (I used to be one of them, before my own children were injured).

 

And where do you draw the line? Is someone who has been hit by a car driven by a drunk driver biased against drunk drivers?  What about someone who drinks and drives--are they biased in their consideration of drunk drivers?  Aren't there emotional biases, no matter which "side" you are on?

 

I don't believe anyone defending the current vaccine schedule is unbiased, either, for the same reason: they have an emotional investment in believing what they've been taught in medical school, or by their own doctors, or by the propaganda instigated and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

No, I'm not a Tinfoil-Hat-Wearing-Conspiracy-Theorist who believes that the doctors are all "out to get us."  

 

Yes, I do believe that mainstream media is owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and a few other wealthy, powerful political giants.  That doesn't make me THWCT, either. Hey--the Murdochs own and operate their own vaccine-testing facility.  They're also on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.  Thomas Glocer, the former CEO of Reuter's, is also a director at Merck.

 

That wealth, power, and control bring corruption.  And I believe that the mainstream sources for vaccine information are horribly corrupt.

 

Organizations like Mercola.com, NaturalNews, and NVIC, etc., may also be corrupt, for all I know.  But when I read their information on vaccine safety, I'm not in the least convinced that I need to go buy anybody's "anti-vaccine products," or anything else from them, or from anyone else.

 

But reading CDC, CHoP, or Offit's vaccine info is obviously an exhortation to go buy a vaccine.  Or 25.  Or 45.  Even if insurance would pay for it, I'm paying for the insurance, and the copay, so ultimately, I would be paying for the vaccines.  And whatever negative permanent effects they may have.

Taximom5 is offline  
Old 07-08-2012, 07:44 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I like the CDC and NPR for the most part. I also agree that this is a nearly impossible task. I think it is okay for both sides to use the sites they view as valid even if the people with the opposing viewpoint dismiss it or them as uneducated or brainwashed buffoons because they are giving their authentic opinion and because that is one of the things that happens in debates where there are two completely opposite viewpoints especially when each side believes the other side is deliberately harming children by ignoring the "research." I don't think either side should have to ditch the sites they see as valid and go with a short list of the few that are agreed on because that will seriously limit what can be discussed.
One_Girl is offline  
Old 07-09-2012, 08:56 AM
 
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)
Obviously not every single thing you find at a site you generally "like" is going to be gold. But generally speaking, I happen to like the CDC (particularly MMWRs and The Pink Book) and state health departments because you can learn a lot of historical information & also learn a lot about what their reasoning is for what they do. I also find the WHO useful for those same reasons on a larger scale & I think you can learn a lot about global issues there. FDA licensure documents & the manufactuer's own PI can be pretty interesting too. Not everything indexed is great but I think the PubMed database is a good place to start a search.

Generally speaking, I don't think sites that pre-digest information for consumers are a good way to cite evidence for your argument. This would include sites like Mercola or CHOP etc. These might be a place you would read & get an idea or come up with a question but I think it's better to look up the sources/references for what they're telling you & read those for yourself - that primary information should be what you use to support your idea rather than Mercola's or Offit's interpretation of the information IMO.

I suppose if someone wants to use that as their reference it would be up to the opposing view to describe or demonstrate exactly why/how the reference is not valid or reliable. But it seems like an awful lot of unproductive time gets wasted over & over & over in these threads because it comes up so often & people just get tired of having that same argument all the darned time. Sometimes that type of derailment just really makes me want to poke my eyeballs out. banghead.gif If we want to have regular debate threads it would make sense to come up with a basis of understanding on references so the topical debate can actually take place.

2cents.gif
amnesiac is offline  
Old 07-09-2012, 12:55 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
adinal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 24,482
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)

Well, I think we are getting to the crux of the problem in here.  If no one can agree on valid research, then there can be no way to discuss an issue without each side dismissing the other's viewpoints, thus rendering the debate threads useless/a joke/pointless/etc. At that point it all becomes a contest to see who can yell the loudest.

 

amnesiac - I really like what you had to say and agree with it.  Primary sources/research seems to be the way to go - anything other than that is going to filter the research through their own filter.  I would be willing to bet you could find the same study, pre-digested on two opposing sites, coming up with opposite conclusions.

 

 

Let me reiterate - this would be for the sake of our debate threads only - not for the whole forum.  For these debate threads, I don't feel that limiting what can be discussed is a problem, as we are already limiting the scope of discussion.


winner.jpg Adina knit.gifmama to B hearts.gif 4/06  and E baby.gif  8/13/12 (on her due date!) homebirth.jpg waterbirth.jpg

 

adinal is offline  
 

Tags
Vaccinations
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