"Australian Vaccination Network" ordered to change "misleading" name. Could NVIC be next? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-28-2012, 10:17 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

use that block button Kathy!!


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-28-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

 If after reviewing all the misinformation more and more people decide against vaccines, more babies and children will die.

 

According to you. And I think most intelligent people can see through misinformation from both sides perfectly fine, never mind the fact that it's highly-educated middle-class people who tend to reject vaccines.

 

Quote:

http://www.boltoncemetery.org.nz/cgi-ddboltonce000/search.cgi?ID=102010&mytemplate=tp2

 

 

Five Duff children died tragically of diphtheria within 11 days. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah in freakin' 1876. What were the living conditions like? 

 

 

Quote:
I have a question for you.  How do you intend to stop this occurring if vaccination doesn't occur?   

 

Plenty of ways, although most of the problem is moot since I live in the modern world, you know with clean water and indoor plumbing and all. 

 

Don't worry about me and mine; we've been able to handle anything that came our way, including chicken pox, without jabs that can cause "normal" inconsolable screaming and back-arching for days on end.

 

 

 

Quote:
Because Australia had a perfectly healthy 22 year old unvaccinated woman die of diptheria this year.   

 

I disagree that she was perfectly healthy. If she were perfectly "healthy," she wouldn't have died.


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

Whether I agree or disagree with information is based on the accuracy and validity of the statement.  I don't choose based on my personal opinion, I use the science as the decider.

 

 

Wiki tells us all we need to know:

 

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a childMichael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.

No it is your opinion/interpretation of the science. Otherwise how can you account for the fact that multiple highly intelligent/educated people can examine the same set of data and come to different conclusions. Happens all the time in medicine. Why do you think people go get second opinions?? In your world there is no room for that. You are right and that is it. Must be nice to have such a simplistic black and white view on things. In mental health that's called Borderline thinking. 

As for what Wiki says about anything. You could have written that. Anybody can write anything on wiki. Its hardly a valid source of information and just because it hasn't been contested doesn't make it valid. 

 

 

Quote:
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.

I would add that anybody with an agenda can write whatever crap they want. In any case I will say that this will be my last response to you. I find it pointless to engage in a debate or discussion with persons that are incapable of seeing anyone else point of view. Happy Freakin' New Year!!


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

use that block button Kathy!!


Ha ha! But then it would appear that it was just the few of us, enjoying the quiet empty view on MDC. winky.gif


Chicharronita is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
If you disagree with a Wikipedia article join in and edit it.

My problem with NVICs name actually is thought that they sound official. "national vaccine information center" sounds to me like a government run organization - which it is not.

Do they recommend some vaccines then? No one answered that yet right?

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 12:48 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If you disagree with a Wikipedia article join in and edit it.
My problem with NVICs name actually is thought that they sound official. "national vaccine information center" sounds to me like a government run organization - which it is not.
A lot of organisations have the word "national" in them, without being government run.  For kicks I googled "National * Society" and a bunch of links to non-profits came up.  I did not look through them all, but most were not government run organisation.

Do they recommend some vaccines then? No one answered that yet right?

Not that I am aware of.  I have been there a lot, but I am not up for searching.  They neither recommend or oppose vaccination, as far as I can recollect.   


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 12-28-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If you disagree with a Wikipedia article join in and edit it.
My problem with NVICs name actually is thought that they sound official. "national vaccine information center" sounds to me like a government run organization - which it is not.
Do they recommend some vaccines then? No one answered that yet right?

I answered it. They don't recommend any across the board and they don't oppose any across the board.

Kathy's right about the "national" part. It may be different in the UK, but in the US we have countless private, non-profit groups with the word "national" in them, and it's pretty much taken for granted that they're not affiliated with the government--National Rifle Association, National Abortion Rights Action League, National Right to Life, National Wildlife Federation, National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running...I could list hundreds. But I won't. winky.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
Old 12-28-2012, 01:18 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Wendy, three things:

1. I am not anti-vaccination, and all of my children are up-to-date on their DTaP doses. But that may surprise people because, as Marnica astutely noted in another thread, black-and-white thinking seems to be the reigning paradigm...

2. The CDC is a government agency that collects, aggregates, and analyzes data on various public health events, including pertussis outbreaks and the vaccination status of those affected. They are not lying to people.

3. If you'd like to stick around MDC, it's probably a good idea to remove that callous, non-sequitor about a horrible, horrible tragedy that really has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

I suspect that the moderators are either experimenting with less moderation or taking a much-needed break from MDC until the New Year. Probably both because Kathy's unforgettable f-bomb is still up there lol.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
Old 12-28-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

If you disagree with a Wikipedia article join in and edit it.
My problem with NVICs name actually is thought that they sound official. "national vaccine information center" sounds to me like a government run organization - which it is not.
Do they recommend some vaccines then? No one answered that yet right?

No - I think I have about a million better ways to spend any free time I might have. (But on one of those slow days at work, I may look into doing just that.) However even if I don't choose to take the time to join and edit, that doesn't mean that what is written there is fact or that it is a credible source of information. 


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

No - I think I have about a million better ways to spend any free time I might have. (But on one of those slow days at work, I may look into doing just that.) However even if I don't choose to take the time to join and edit, that doesn't mean that what is written there is fact or that it is a credible source of information. 

Yeah - just their rules on referencing properly what's posted do that.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 02:31 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

My understanding of the NVIC is that there is the unanswered request for sound research regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I get the impression that NVIC as well as most so-called Anti-vaxxers would be most interested to examine such research if an unbiased study presented itself, and perhaps they might make a well-informed choice about actually using one. Most nonvaxxers I know cite the lack of sound research about the drugs as the primary reason they avoid them. And so, based on some of this thread, I doubt the NVIC is in any kind of danger of being sued over the name.

 

There is plenty of sound research about vaccination already.  It's an anti vaccinationist ploy to deny that it exists.  They demand double blind placebo tests, not even understanding what that means.

 

If you look around you, you will see the vaccination research 'in the wild'.  Apart from the studies that they do, we are vaccinated .. you can see what happens to the vaccinated, and to the unvaccinated and to those who allow their immunisation to wane.     Choosing people, giving some of them a placebo and then infecting them with a disease with no cure is ludicrous, so why do people insist that it's the only test they will accept while ignoring decades of history?    

 

I too doubt the NVIC is in any danger of being forced to change it's name, after all the order to the AVN is based on Australian Legislation.  The Immunisation Awareness Society in NZ is likely to face the same in the future though.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Right.  I am not answering your question, although I often do when people seem genuine. It has nothing to do with a non-vax "tactic" of avoiding answering questions.   You do not come across as worthy of answering.  Take your poison elsewhere.

 

Another tactic of the anti-vaccinationist ... faux offense so they can flounce off and not address the issues.

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 02:48 PM
 
tuxcomputers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

I disagree that she was perfectly healthy. If she were perfectly "healthy," she wouldn't have died.

 

Congratulations, your logical fallacy is "No true Scotsman"

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

tuxcomputers is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 02:53 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

According to you. And I think most intelligent people can see through misinformation from both sides perfectly fine, never mind the fact that it's highly-educated middle-class people who tend to reject vaccines.

 

 

I don't disagree that intelligent people can see through misinformation.  However, I'm not sure they're the people that we are talking about at the moment and certainly your comment about the type of people who reject vaccination shows that.   I've read that before but you know what, in Australia the vast majority of people who reject vaccination draw welfare, as was recently determined and in the media ...   welfare recipients are on the whole, not highly educated, middle class people.

 

Fear of vaccination is an unreasonable fear that does not align with the facts.  The risk of adverse reaction to vaccination is miniscule in comparison to the risks associated with the diseases, yet anti vaccinationists cannot see that.  Indeed, there is more change that a child will be injured on a trampoline or in a car, yet these same people have trampolines and travel in cars.  Children get more toxins in their normal day to day living than in an immunisation yet these people do nothing about the environment.

 

 

While you are reading this, EMR is emitting from your monitor directly at you.   Your house is full of electricity wandering around doing it's thing, you are being bombarded with radio waves.  Yet here you are, having decided the risk is acceptable (even though we know that to much EMR can cause cancer), telling me that the risk of immunisation is to high.   Many anti immunisationist I have spoken to feed their children pre-processed foods full of chemicals and additives, one even boasted how 'natural' they live and when we walked into her pantry .. packet custard, full of colouring 102, yes very natural.      

 

Do you every wonder why people do not take anti-vaccinationists  seriously with so many examples of hypocrisy?

 

 

Quote:

Yeah in freakin' 1876. What were the living conditions like? 

 

 

 

Living conditions in New Zealand (and Australia) in 1876 were fantastic.  Fresh air, clean water, good food.  The only difference is the lack of immunisation and treatment for diseases.   Indeed, one of the first Governors of Australia lost his child to whooping cough .. so it affected the wealthy and the poor alike, so the conditions in which they lived made little difference, particularly once the disease is caught.

 

 

 

Quote:

Don't worry about me and mine; we've been able to handle anything that came our way, including chicken pox, without jabs that can cause "normal" inconsolable screaming and back-arching for days on end.

 

 

I'm not worried about you or yours, other than to acknowledge that you show concern only for them and not for the other children in your community, that's where you and I differ.   Emotive rhetoric doesn't give credibility.  Inconsolable screaming and back arching for days on end is not considered normal, and certainly none of my children had any such reaction.   The only place i've ever seen that described is in the stories that people tell on the net and the interesting part of that is that you could overlay the stories and they're all almost word for word.

 

Quote:

I disagree that she was perfectly healthy. If she were perfectly "healthy," she wouldn't have died.

 

Interesting, you think that only the unhealthy die of these diseases.   In this day and age we have a thing called an autopsy that allows us to draw informed conclussion and not rely on the uninformed opinion of the agenda driven.  Healthy people can fall victim to these diseases, this is why we vaccinate.     

 

Having said that, if you believe that only the unhealthy die of these diseases and you do not agree with immunisation, you are by inference saying that it's OK for those in the community that are health compromised to die, and quite frankly that is the most offensive thing that i've ever read.  What type of person thinks that's OK ?  Unbelievable.

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 03:07 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

No it is your opinion/interpretation of the science. Otherwise how can you account for the fact that multiple highly intelligent/educated people can examine the same set of data and come to different conclusions. Happens all the time in medicine. Why do you think people go get second opinions?? In your world there is no room for that. You are right and that is it. Must be nice to have such a simplistic black and white view on things. In mental health that's called Borderline thinking. 

As for what Wiki says about anything. You could have written that. Anybody can write anything on wiki. Its hardly a valid source of information and just because it hasn't been contested doesn't make it valid. 

 

 

I would add that anybody with an agenda can write whatever crap they want. In any case I will say that this will be my last response to you. I find it pointless to engage in a debate or discussion with persons that are incapable of seeing anyone else point of view. Happy Freakin' New Year!!

 

There are many reasons why people can examine a set of data and come to different conclussions and in some instances it's because they are seeking validation of their agenda.  Wakefield would be the most public example of that that springs to mind right now, although he didn't misinterpret the data so much as he fixed the findings prior to starting the study.   You don't know what's in my world, this is just an example of you interpretating the data to suit your own agenda.   

 

Interesting, you label all those who disagree with you as having mental health issues, have you taken a look at yourself?

 

Do you understand how wiki works?  You can write (almost) anything you want here, but on wikie it can be and is constantly challenged.  Have you ever taken the time to look a that at the history of the pages?  do you even know how?   The NVIC page has plenty of attempts to change the subject and the nature of the information on it).

 

These type of controversial pages are more likely to be accurate as they have lots of update attempts, with a requirement for wiki workers to arbitrate .. they require factual sources.    Anti vaccinationists deny what they don't agree with, and as wiki doesn't say what you want, you deny it.   Go take a look at the edits, and the war that goes on ...  

 

 

 

(Article is about NVIC not about vaccines in general)

(Criticism:  Provided some balance to a generally negative article about NVIC)

(rv; "more factual"? you removed the description of what the group actually does, along with an excellent source)

(the assertion that the founders "blamed" and "claimed" should be verifiable)

 (restore well sourced material; remove new material, this isn't a news article)

(Deleted Spector's slanderous and false characterization of NVIC. It does not belong in its entry, particularly in the introduction.)(Criticism:   updated sec. to include reaction to February 22 Supreme Court ruling; a major set back for NVIC's mission to promote vaccine safety and hold manufacturers accountable for injuries.)

(article (and lead) should prefer independent, reliable third-party published sources rather than sources directly affiliated with the subject; this is an encyclopedia article, not a press release)

(rv: restore content; reference to RfC is inherently diversionary, there's no point in making additional comments on the inconclusive MMR whale.to discussion, as points have already been made; nice try)

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 03:32 PM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Wendy, three things:
1. I am not anti-vaccination, and all of my children are up-to-date on their DTaP doses. But that may surprise people because, as Marnica astutely noted in another thread, black-and-white thinking seems to be the reigning paradigm...
2. The CDC is a government agency that collects, aggregates, and analyzes data on various public health events, including pertussis outbreaks and the vaccination status of those affected. They are not lying to people.
3. If you'd like to stick around MDC, it's probably a good idea to remove that callous, non-sequitor about a horrible, horrible tragedy that really has nothing to do with anything on this thread.
I suspect that the moderators are either experimenting with less moderation or taking a much-needed break from MDC until the New Year. Probably both because Kathy's unforgettable f-bomb is still up there lol.gif

 

The "callous non-sequitor" passed through moderation, everything i post goes through moderation.

 

It was deliberately extreme to make the point.    The issue is a mess here?  No it isn't, the pro-vaccinationists are winning and the anti-vaccinationists are doing that fish out of water thing, flopping around spraying everyone around them.

 

 

This issue isn't about personal choice as that right is not in question.  You choose not to vaccinate, that's your right.   This is an issue about information and misinformation.  If the anti vaccination crowd (and i'll refer to AVN here as I haven't read all the NVIC pages) posted accurate information, and interpretation of data that stood up to verification then this wouldn't even be an issue, but that's not what this is about, this is about the spreading of misinformation and it is constantly proven to be misinformation.

 

For example .. the whooping cough discussion in Australia (I may have said this before ?)

 

In Australia the instances of immunisation for whooping cough is quite high, yet the instance of whooping cough is quite high.  The anti immunisationists use this as justification that the immunisation doesn't work.  This is a conclusion that can be drawn from the facts at hand.    Agree?

 

Wrong.   All we can conclude here is that the data is flawed and further investigation needs to occur. Why?  Because the majority of children who are hospitalised due to whooping cough are to young for full immunisation (or any in the instance of my friends son who died in September), and they are getting the disease from their parents.  So rather than data, we have questions.  Not the AVN, they drew their conclusion, based on the data and have published it out there telling people that the vaccine obviously doesn't work.  Their 'educated researching' supporters have taken this data and us it for their own justification.

 

 

For me, there were glaring questions .. how do these kids get whooping cough from their immunised parents?  A little research found that the immunisation wanes after a few years .. so what we actually have is people who were immunised as children being counted as immunised even though they are not immunised.  Hmmm, that wasn't mentioned in the AVN data at all.   How odd ..    so, now we have established that the AVN has drawn their conclusion from flawed data without sufficient investigation.     So they are wrong.

 

Additionally, a quick trip to google also showed me that in addition that that, the instances of whooping cough are higher in the parts of Australia where the immunisation rate is well below the national average.  So, this is another flaw in the conclusion drawn by the AVN, they have used average data without consideration of location.

 

 

So now we have 2 pieces of data we didn't have before .. children are getting whooping cough from their unimmunised parents and in locations where immunisation rates in children are lower than the average.    So now we have data that says that the higher rates of immunisation align with the lower instances of the disease.  So, on that data we can draw the conclussion that immunisation does minimise instances of the disease.

 

 

So yes, we can see how 2 sets of people can draw 2 differing opinions from the same data, but are both groups intelligent?    I don't know if I agree in this instance.

 

 

You use the term "black and white" as some type of insult against me, but i'm not the black / white thinker .. I question everything I read ...   some of us seek information, others seek validation of their already formed opinion .. 

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 07:49 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
nm

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 12-28-2012, 08:05 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxcomputers View Post

Do you have a clue on how papers get published in journals? I mean reputable journals? Do you know how punishing the cycle is? Medicine yes, so what, we aren't talking about your local GP and his side kick here, we are talking about evidence from multiple countries with many many different sources of funding across thousands of researchers.

Yes there are a few fringe nutters but 99.999999% of the researchers conclude that vaccines do more good than harm. There is not enough profit from the entire "Big Pharma", let alone just from vaccines, to pay them all off.

Like it or not, it comes down to numbers, vaccinate or not there will be children harmed, there is no other choice. In fantasy land there would be no children harmed by vaccines and no children harmed by VPD's. Problem is we don't live in fantasy land, we live in the real world. If you have proof that more children are harmed by vaccines than by the VPD then by all means have it published and collect your Nobel prize.

What do you think they spend the funding for on vaccines? They spend it on figuring out how to reduce the number of children harmed by the vaccines. The whole cell whooping cough was switched to the part cell because it has less side effects. In your nutty conspiracy world how do you reconcile that? I thought they only cared about profits? Doing further research on a working vaccine would waste money, no? In your freaked out mind they don't give a shit about vaccine reactions so why bother spending the millions and decades developing a vaccines the reduces side effects?

So I'm a conspiracy nut now? Ooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Lol. I think I need to hop on the train out of crazy town now.......

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 08:12 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

There are many reasons why people can examine a set of data and come to different conclussions and in some instances it's because they are seeking validation of their agenda.  Wakefield would be the most public example of that that springs to mind right now, although he didn't misinterpret the data so much as he fixed the findings prior to starting the study.   You don't know what's in my world, this is just an example of you interpretating the data to suit your own agenda.   

Interesting, you label all those who disagree with you as having mental health issues, have you taken a look at yourself?

Do you understand how wiki works?  You can write (almost) anything you want here, but on wikie it can be and is constantly challenged.  Have you ever taken the time to look a that at the history of the pages?  do you even know how?   The NVIC page has plenty of attempts to change the subject and the nature of the information on it).

These type of controversial pages are more likely to be accurate as they have lots of update attempts, with a requirement for wiki workers to arbitrate .. they require factual sources.    Anti vaccinationists deny what they don't agree with, and as wiki doesn't say what you want, you deny it.   Go take a look at the edits, and the war that goes on ...  



(Article is about NVIC not about vaccines in general)

(


Criticism:  Provided some balance to a generally negative article about NVIC
)

(rv; "more factual"? you removed the description of what the group actually does, along with an excellent source)

(the assertion that the founders "blamed" and "claimed" should be verifiable)

 
(restore well sourced material; remove new material, this isn't a news article)

(Deleted Spector's slanderous and false characterization of NVIC. It does not belong in its entry, particularly in the introduction.)
(


Criticism:   updated sec. to include reaction to February 22 Supreme Court ruling; a major set back for NVIC's mission to promote vaccine safety and hold manufacturers accountable for injuries.
)

(article (and lead) should prefer independent, reliable third-party published sources rather than sources directly affiliated with the subject; this is an encyclopedia article, not a press release)

(rv: restore content; reference to RfC is inherently diversionary, there's no point in making additional comments on the inconclusive MMR whale.to discussion, as points have already been made; nice try)

Nm so not worth it!

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 12-28-2012, 08:13 PM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyAdams View Post

 

 

 children are getting whooping cough from their unimmunised parents 

This part in particular interests me. I wonder if there is verified data that the parents were the transmitters of the bug? Did the parent need to be symptomatic in order for the infant to contract the illness? Do you have a link for this? (Sorry if I missed it in previous pages).

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 03:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
WendyAdams - thanks for thinking of posting the NVIC Wikipedia history page. I didn't think of that, but it does make for revealing reading!

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:51 AM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

This part in particular interests me. I wonder if there is verified data that the parents were the transmitters of the bug? Did the parent need to be symptomatic in order for the infant to contract the illness? Do you have a link for this? (Sorry if I missed it in previous pages).

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/family-rues-call-on-whooping-cough-booster-ban/story-e6frg8y6-1226533226786

 

If by symptomatic you mean currently have whooping cough in the infectious stage then the answer would be yes.

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:56 AM
 
WendyAdams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

WendyAdams - thanks for thinking of posting the NVIC Wikipedia history page. I didn't think of that, but it does make for revealing reading!

 

 

No worries, the NVIC history page is tame compared to some, seems not that many people are concerned enough to fight the anti-vaccination label.      .. go check out the Australian Vaccination Networks history ....  much more colourful.    

WendyAdams is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 04:57 AM
 
tuxcomputers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

 

Well that's not exactly true. If after reviewing all the information more and more people decide against vaccines, there go the vaccine profits. ;-)

 

Vaccines are 2% of turnover, let alone profits, that is their motivation? Really?

tuxcomputers is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 05:13 AM
 
tuxcomputers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

To be anti-vaccination is to oppose all vaccines for all people at all times. Do you have any indisputable, concrete, primary-source evidence that this is the official position of the National Vaccine Information Center?

 

You wanted proof that the NVIC is anti-vaccine then here it is:

 

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccines-and-Diseases/Autism.aspx

 

 

Quote:
In 1990, NVIC was contacted by California mother, Cindy Goldenberg, who explained how her bright healthy son became autistic following his MMR vaccine. Following many visits to different doctors in her attempt to find out what had happened to her son, multiple tests were performed to evaluate his immune function and revealed a high antibody count to rubella vaccine. After conducting research into the connection between rubella infection and autism, she contacted an immunologist and they put together a biomedical protocol to address his immune dysfunction which resulted in her son recovering from autism.
Since 1990, a growing number of physicians have acknowledged that development of regressive autism has multi-factorial causes and that there are many questions yet to be answered about the biological causes for and prevention and treatment of autism. What has become clear since the autism-vaccine connection was first reported in 1985 is that many children with regressive autism are getting better from biomedical and holistic health approaches to healing brain and immune system dysfunction.

 

Typical anti-vax methodology, tell an anecdote, first A happened then B happened, therefore A caused B.

 

Not a single mention on that page of the dozens and dozens of studies across multiple countries covering 10's of thousands of children that found no link, none, zip, nadda between autism and vaccines = NVIC is anti-vaccine.

tuxcomputers is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 06:33 AM
 
lanamommyphd07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everywhere, USA
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Is there an AU VAERS? I swear, when it was time to research effects, I spent hours on those lists. What if Australian citizens have no access to a VAERS kind of thing?

 

ETA: Okay, I found the answer. AU physicians report the same way US physicians do--sort of, but AU adverse events seem to feed a kind of VAERS (AEFI?) also. But again, they are relying on the docs to report the issue, so I wonder if they have the same underreporting problem as the US?

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-pubs-2004-cdi2803-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi2803b.pdf

lanamommyphd07 is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 06:45 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
///

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 12-29-2012, 07:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanamommyphd07 View Post

This part in particular interests me. I wonder if there is verified data that the parents were the transmitters of the bug? Did the parent need to be symptomatic in order for the infant to contract the illness? Do you have a link for this? (Sorry if I missed it in previous pages).

From what I understand, newborns often do catch it from a family member.  This mainstream site said about 1/2 of all whooping cough in infants was transmitted via the mother.http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pdf/48855.pdf.

 

Some places have experimented with cocooning - which is when all members of the family, and caregivers, are given a pertussis booster to try and protect the newborn.  Australia had it, then rescinded it as they decided it was not effective.

 

That being said, if I lived in an area with a high amount of pertussis, I may very well get a pertussis booster before pregnancy or at birth in an attempt to keep the infant safe (I am typically non-vax) …and the baby would be sheltered from contact with lots of people during the first 4 or 5 months of its life.  Pertussis is nasty in babies.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 12-29-2012, 10:47 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,230
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


That it is not appropriate under the UA to discuss other posters.

Aren't they talking about other posters in a nasty way? Shouldn't we be able to call people on being inappropriate if the are being inappropriate?  I am genuinely interested in knowing if pro-vaxxers think the behaviour of Wendy and tux thus far has been acceptable. 

 

lurk.gif  while I wait for an answer......


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 12-29-2012, 11:07 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,677
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)

The issue of what we allow in terms of discussing posting and members as well as how we discuss forum issues is something that the moderators are working on getting an answer to the community. Would members be willing to give us a bit of time to work that out?  


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
Old 12-29-2012, 11:48 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I have no interest in about 90% of this thread, but Wikipedia is one of my pet issues.

When examined head to head via random auditing, Wikipedia was as accurate as the encyclopedia brittanica. Yes, anyone can edit it. But you know what happens when you have a large group of people working on an article and few of them have an agenda? The handful of people posting inaccurate stuff immediately have it corrected by the much larger number working to keep the article accurate.

Wikipedia is not a primary source. however, it IS remarkably accurate and reliable. The whole "you can put anything on Wikipedia" nonsense is just not true, and really belies a misunderstanding about how things like Wikipedia work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Rrrrrachel 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