Vaccines schedules: past and present - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 25 Old 03-02-2013, 08:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/past.html

 

1983 (autism 1 in 10,000) 10 vaccines

 

 

 

2013 (autism 1 in 88) 46 vaccines

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6105a5.htm


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 25 Old 03-04-2013, 02:58 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

I always have a hard time counting vaccines - could you list the 46 for me. Does this include the annual flu shots? 

 

Do you know if DTP in 1983 included whole cell pertussis - because that included almost 3000 different antigens - more antigens than the entire schedule contains in 2013. Of course it was more effective that the current pertussis, but also had higher rates of side effects/reactions, so the decision was made to change. I'm not sure what the date was on that decision.

 

Lots of other things have changed between 1983 and 2013 too. 

 

Did you know the average age of Mums giving birth in 1983 was 26 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_01.pdf), it's over 30 now. 

 

I couldn't find the exact statistics for Dads, but this article (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/08/27/top-3-reasons-to-stop-fretting-about-being-an-old-dad/, which is a response to concerns about higher autism rates for older Dads) says that (for Icelanders)

 

 

 

Quote:
the average age of fathers has recently shot up, from 27.9 years in 1980 to 33 in 2011

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  
#3 of 25 Old 03-04-2013, 09:27 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I always have a hard time counting vaccines - could you list the 46 for me. Does this include the annual flu shots? 

 

Do you know if DTP in 1983 included whole cell pertussis - because that included almost 3000 different antigens - more antigens than the entire schedule contains in 2013. Of course it was more effective that the current pertussis, but also had higher rates of side effects/reactions, so the decision was made to change. I'm not sure what the date was on that decision.

 

It was whole cel in Canada until 1997.  (I know, because I had a baby at the time the switch was made).

 

Lots of other things have changed between 1983 and 2013 too. 

 

Did you know the average age of Mums giving birth in 1983 was 26 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_01.pdf), it's over 30 now. 

 

I couldn't find the exact statistics for Dads, but this article (http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/08/27/top-3-reasons-to-stop-fretting-about-being-an-old-dad/, which is a response to concerns about higher autism rates for older Dads) says that (for Icelanders).

 

Yes, I know.  Age alone does not account for the increase in autism, though.  It is not as if older mothers did not procreate in the past (indeed, they did) and it is not as if children with autism are only born to older parents.  I don't think age is the smoking gun at all in the increase in autism from 1/10 000 to 1/88.  

 

 

 


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  
#4 of 25 Old 03-05-2013, 08:16 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

Yeah. So many things have changed between 1983 and today. Included in that is also how well doctors are able to recognise autism. :) 


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  
#5 of 25 Old 03-05-2013, 10:00 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Yeah. So many things have changed between 1983 and today. Included in that is also how well doctors are able to recognize autism. :) 

Sure.  Information I have read suggests that increased awareness, change in diagnostic criteria, people who were once lumped under "mentally disabled" now being lumped under "autism" etc,  accounts for about 50% of the increase in autism.  The increase in autism has been huge, though, so a 50% increase still leaves huge numbers unexplained.

 

http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/10/22/got-questions-answers-to-your-questions-from-the-autism-speaks’-science-staff-2/

 

"Based on the abovementioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%).  While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone."


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  
#6 of 25 Old 03-09-2013, 09:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Yeah. So many things have changed between 1983 and today. Included in that is also how well doctors are able to recognise autism. :) 

Nothing has changed in the last 12 years regarding how well doctors recognize autism.  Yet the rate of autism diagnosis has continued to drastically increase.

Taximom5 is online now  
#7 of 25 Old 03-10-2013, 05:01 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,630
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)

This is a great tread so far. Let's make sure that the discussion remains in the spirit of helping those new to vaccination. 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#8 of 25 Old 03-10-2013, 02:48 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)

My 2 cents for anyone trying to sort out any vaccine-autism connection:

 

There is a genetic causation versus environment causation divide when it comes to autism.  

 

Some people only like to look at environment, some only like to look at genetics and some will look at both.

 

I am skeptical of any site that latches onto one extreme over another if they also talk about vaccines.  I suspect their love or hatred of vaccines may colour their objectivity.  

 

While I think hatred of vaccine is pretty clear, I will explain what I mean by "love" of vaccines colouring objectivity.  If you believe there is no increase in autism, that autism has always been with us in rates similar to todays…then vaccines cannot be the cause of the rise in autism rate as there is no rise in autism.  When someone loves vaccines and also disregards the idea that environment may be at play in autism, I always wonder if they are just refusing to look at environmental causes as they don't want to open that can of (possibly vaccine-filled) worms. 

 

 

 

ETA:  here is a non-inflammatory article on genes versus environment:

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/07/autism-genetics-vs-environment


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  
#9 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 04:37 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

I thought a link to the CDC page on tracking of autism numbers and the studies they are supporting to search for the reasons for the observed trends may be useful. 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html 

 

They include this statement in their introduction:

 

 

Quote:
More people than ever before are being diagnosed with an ASD. It is unclear how much of this increase is due to a broader definition of ASDs and better efforts in diagnosis. However, a true increase in the number of people with an ASD cannot be ruled out. We believe the increase in ASD diagnosis is likely due to a combination of these factors.

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  
#10 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 05:41 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

For that might have missed this, here is the full video and transcripts of the the Congressional Hearings on the autism pandemic.

 

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/full-us-congress-autism-pandemic-hearingsts/


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#11 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 05:49 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

Mirzam - still waiting for the list of 46 vaccines. I'm sure it would help those new to the research process to see it all properly laid out. :)


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  
#12 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 06:05 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

Actually I guess I can try to count for myself. I'm basing this on the US schedule published here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

 

Birth to 15 months: 

1-3:  3 doses of Hep B

4-6(or 5): 2 or 3 doses of rotavirus (depending on brand used)

7-9 (or 6-8): 3 doses of TDaP

10-12 (or 9-10): 2 or 3 doses of HiB (depending on brand used)

13-15 (or 11-13): 3 doses of PCV13

16-18 (or 14-16): 3 doses of IPV

19 (or 17): 1 annual flu shot (starts after 6 months in recommendation, so second one would be at 15 months + - see below)

20 (or 18): 1st MMR shot

21 (or 19): 1st varicella shot

22-23 (or 20-21): 2 dose series for Hep A separated by 2 months, started after 12 months

 

then 18 months -18 years

24-26 (or 22-24): 2 more doses of TDap at 18 months and 4-6 yrs, and 1 adult shot (>7 yrs) at 11-12 years.

27 (or 25): 4th dose of IPV at age 4-6yrs

28 (or 26): 2nd dose MMR (at age 4-6)

29 (or 27): 2nd dose varicella (at age 4-6)

*then there's annual flu shots, I guess a total of 17 for these 16.5yrs between 18 months -17.5yrs if done exactly on time.

so that's 30-46 (or 28-44) including those.

*plus HPV 3 dose series age 11-12 (so 47-49 or 45-47) 

* 2 doses of Men C (at 11-12 and 16 years). 50-51, or 48-49.

 

Huh, so actually I count 51 (or 49) total shots up to age 18 if the recommendations are followed exactly and depending on the brands of a couple of the shots (and that includes annual flu shots which accounts for 18 of these if it's done exactly every 1 yr from 6 months+). 

 

Did I do it wrong? 


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  
#13 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 07:04 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

10 vs 49-51 

 

one would think children now should be healthier (less dr, er visits, less) - any one got evidence of that? maybe healthier has nothing to do with vaccines headscratch.gif

MissCee and kathymuggle like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#14 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 08:29 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

10 vs 49-51 

 

one would think children now should be healthier (less dr, er visits, less) - any one got evidence of that? maybe healthier has nothing to do with vaccines headscratch.gif


Very good point.

 

Children today seem chronically sicker than they used to be (say 30 years ago)- and it is not just autism, although that is certainly a HUGE issue.

 

I do not know if vaccines contribute to this (well, I believe we do have some evidence around vaccines and allergies, asthma, auto-immune issues and autism)  - so more precisely I do not know how much vaccines contribute to this.  Sadly, we are unlikely to find out any time soon - there is too much conflict of interest and denial* inherent in our system of checks and balances to know what is what.

 

I also think, and perhaps this is off topic, and perhaps not - that our love of pharmaceuticals may be at the heart of our health crisis.  So very many people are on pharmaceuticals.  So many more than before seem to need them (it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing). Vaccines themselves are not the whole issue - but I bet people being willing to put all sorts of crap in their body for convenience is a large part of our health problem  (Want that crap food? Go for it!  Pesticides means you won't have to pull out your weeds by hand!  Have a cold that lasts longer than you would like- maybe you need antibiotics!  Afraid of the chicken pox? we have a vaccine for that!)

 

__________________

 

* "denial" might be a strong word.  Some people may see it as "burden of proof."  In order for a vaccine reaction to be accepted by a doctor it pretty much has to happen in front of them.  I can understand, sort of, why doctors feel this way, but it is not good enough for me - as a parent.  There are so many parents reporting issues after vaccination and I am not willing to dismiss it while they sort it out.  A little off topic story:  I am reading a book called "Raising Elijah" by an ecologist. She talks about how information on pressure treated wood was breaking as her 3 year old  was enrolled in a nursery school with a pressure treated play structure.  There were people around her who wanted to wait for the EPAs report on pressure treated wood to come out before taking action.  The report would take years (7, if I remember correctly) to come out.  She ultimately withdrew her child from the school over the pressure treated wood issue. 

 

Having a high burden of proof may be acceptable to doctors and public policy makers - it is not necessarily acceptable to parents, particularly when the alternative (not vaxxing) holds little risk.  Some pro-vaxxers would say it holds little risk as most people vax - but that is not typically true.  Most VADs are rare to begin with or fairly benign in most children - I can only think of a few which carry risks that concern me. 

rachelsmama likes this.

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  
#15 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 08:58 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

I also think, and perhaps this is off topic, and perhaps not - that our love of pharmaceuticals may be at the heart of our health crisis.  So very many people are on pharmaceuticals  So many more than before seem to need them (it is a bit of a chicken and egg thing). Vaccines themselves are not the whole issue - but I bet people being willing to put all sorts of crap in their body for convenience is a large part of our health problem  (Want that crap food? Go for it!  Pesticides means you won't have to pull out your weeds by hand!  Have a cold that lasts longer than you would like- maybe you need antibiotics!  Afraid of the chicken pox? we have a vaccine for that!)

 

 

Just one comment - in case it's not clear to newbies. It's not all or nothing. You can avoid putting uneccessary crap into your body, and also think vaccines (some or all) are, on balance a good idea. Many people posting on these boards (especially on INV) present vaxxers as also eating processed food only, and not caring about their bodies/environment at all etc. At least on MDC you'll find many pro-vax people who eat organic, avoid HFCS, try not to over use anti-biotics or tylenol etc. Guess what  - a lot of that is supported by great science. That's very different when you're talking about avoiding all vaccines.

 

I think we're steering close to debate (I'm trying really hard I promise!). Should we ask this get moved to the debate board?  


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  
#16 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 09:35 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,630
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think we're steering close to debate (I'm trying really hard I promise!). Should we ask this get moved to the debate board?  

Members wishing to debate this topic are welcome to post a spin-off. 

prosciencemum likes this.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#17 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 11:21 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Just one comment - in case it's not clear to newbies. It's not all or nothing. You can avoid putting uneccessary crap into your body, and also think vaccines (some or all) are, on balance a good idea. Many people posting on these boards (especially on INV) present vaxxers as also eating processed food only, and not caring about their bodies/environment at all etc. At least on MDC you'll find many pro-vax people who eat organic, avoid HFCS, try not to over use anti-biotics or tylenol etc. Guess what  - a lot of that is supported by great science. That's very different when you're talking about avoiding all vaccines.

 

 

I  need to clarify that when people from INV talk about those who vax, they are often talking about the population in general - not the population on MDC.  They are two different populations. In general, people do vax, and most people do eat crappy food (it is called the Standard American Diet (SAD) for a reason). Technically, most vaxxers probably do eat crappily, even if most vaxxers on MDC do not.

 

I think you need to define "great science" because (shockingly, lol) we disagree.  This is the "science" I know of:

 

Studies - the vast majority of which are largely funded by pharmaceutical companies; few compare unvaccinated to vaccinated individuals

VAERs and VSD - which track reactions to vaccines. VAERs has significant under-reporting issues.  

 

 

 

So…we have studies funded by pharmacies, and things that track reactions after they happen (fat lot of good that does the injured parties)

 

How is this good science?

 

While disagreeing with you might be considered debate (a mod can decide) - I think sorting out what is good science might be important for a newbie. 

Taximom5 and ladylittlebird like this.

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  
#18 of 25 Old 03-11-2013, 01:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

 

I think you need to define "great science" because (shockingly, lol) we disagree.  This is the "science" I know of:

 

Studies - the vast majority of which are largely funded by pharmaceutical companies; few compare unvaccinated to vaccinated individuals

VAERs and VSD - which track reactions to vaccines. VAERs has significant under-reporting issues.  

 

 

 

So…we have studies funded by pharmacies, and things that track reactions after they happen (fat lot of good that does the injured parties)

 

How is this good science?

 

While disagreeing with you might be considered debate (a mod can decide) - I think sorting out what is good science might be important for a newbie. 

kathymuggle, you are exactly right.  I'll take it a step further--yes, the studies are funded by (and directed by, and interpreted by, and ghostwritten by, and marketed by) the pharmaceutical industry.  In addition, they are published by pharma-funded journals.  Conflict of interest?  You bet.

 

We depend on doctors--particularly pediatricians, since vaccine recipients are most often babies, toddlers, and children--to recognize and report adverse reactions to VAERS.  

Who trains these doctors to recognize adverse reactions to vaccines?

Yes, that's right--employees of the vaccine industry.  That's who designs and directs the Continuing Medical Education that doctors must enroll in in order to become Board-certified. That's who speaks to doctors at conferences and meetings about new vaccines.  In many cases, that's who is teaching at medical and nursing schools.  

That's how doctors are taught that "these reactions are vanishingly rare."

 

psm may talk about "great science," but I see it as "tobacco science."

Mirzam likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#19 of 25 Old 03-12-2013, 06:38 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

I was talking about the great science supporting the benefits of things like eating organically, trying to limit exposure to too many household chemicals etc. That was not about vaccine safety and efficacy studies (either before or after they're licensed). 

 

I'm not going to respond in detail to either of your posts claiming those things are all junk. I don't want to scare off any one. I disagree that you are painting a complete picture - not all of the science is industry funded, and funding alone does not make a conflict of interest. Plenty of scientists and doctors are ethical and genuinely trying to provide the best advice they can. Happy to debate on the main board if you want to start a thread there. I think we've been round it all several times before so I'm not going to bother starting anything.


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  
#20 of 25 Old 03-12-2013, 01:31 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

It's funny eating organically is mentioned and that 'great science' supports it.  here are a few articles that claim not enough has been done on the issue to make a blanket statement claiming any kind of nutritional value over conventionally produced foods.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Weighs-In-For-the-First-Time-on-Organic-Foods-for-Children.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token

 

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/10/protecting-childrens-health-american-academy-of-pediatrics-misses-the-big-picture-in-their-flawed-organics-analysis/

 

 http://organicfarms.wsu.edu/blog/nutrition/organicfoodkidsaap/

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I was talking about the great science supporting the benefits of things like eating organically, trying to limit exposure to too many household chemicals etc. That was not about vaccine safety and efficacy studies (either before or after they're licensed). 

 

I'm not going to respond in detail to either of your posts claiming those things are all junk. I don't want to scare off any one. I disagree that you are painting a complete picture - not all of the science is industry funded, and funding alone does not make a conflict of interest. Plenty of scientists and doctors are ethical and genuinely trying to provide the best advice they can. Happy to debate on the main board if you want to start a thread there. I think we've been round it all several times before so I'm not going to bother starting anything.

Taximom5 likes this.
emmy526 is online now  
#21 of 25 Old 03-14-2013, 08:53 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)

 

Yeah I agree that was a bad choice for an example. There's actually not even any good evidence organic is better for the environment in the long run. 

 

Still no drastic downside of eating organically I can see (apart from increased cost!).

 

I was just trying to point out that lots of natural parenting choices are supported by science. Should have been more careful in the choices I listed.

 

Interesting to note though that absolutely anything I post on this board will be objected to by someone!  


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  
#22 of 25 Old 03-14-2013, 09:33 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Yeah I agree that was a bad choice for an example. There's actually not even any good evidence organic is better for the environment in the long run. 

 

Still no drastic downside of eating organically I can see (apart from increased cost!).

 

I was just trying to point out that lots of natural parenting choices are supported by science. Should have been more careful in the choices I listed.

 

Interesting to note though that absolutely anything I post on this board will be objected to by someone!  

 ROTFLMAO.gif lol.gif  twins.gif

 

To the last line - perhaps that is because there is actually something to object to! 

Mirzam likes this.

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  
#23 of 25 Old 03-14-2013, 02:46 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

Interesting to note though that absolutely anything I post on this board will be objected to by someone!  

Likewise.  It is the nature of the beast.


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  
#24 of 25 Old 03-14-2013, 03:25 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,630
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)

twins.gif


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#25 of 25 Old 03-14-2013, 04:35 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

Yeah I agree that was a bad choice for an example. There's actually not even any good evidence organic is better for the environment in the long run. 

 

Still no drastic downside of eating organically I can see (apart from increased cost!).

 

I was just trying to point out that lots of natural parenting choices are supported by science. Should have been more careful in the choices I listed.

 

Interesting to note though that absolutely anything I post on this board will be objected to by someone!  

Actually, i was already looking at these articles at that very moment, when i popped over here to see what's happenin'..and when i saw the very discussion come up, i couldn't help myself but post links of what i just found..lol.....ordinarily, if something is not at my fingertips for immediate disposal at the time i need it, i am not the type of person to deliberately go back to posts and respond, just to show someone up or attempt sabotage to their reply.  

emmy526 is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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