Anyone know anything about the website "Science-Based Medicine?" Who is Steven P. Novella, MD? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-30-2013, 10:18 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I can't STAND NaturalNews!!!!!! LOL.

I will probably get ripped to shreds bones n' all for this, but I really liked Dr. Sear's Vaccine book. I found it to be very informative regarding the ingredients of each vaccine, and also the risk of the diseases. I haven't looked at it for a long time but I think the only one he doesn't recommend is the Chicken Pox vax, which isn't surprising. He also offers a delayed schedule which I think is great.

I also spent a lot of time looking at the info available from the companies that actually manufacture the vaccines. That was a big part of my decision.

It's a tough decision either way. I admire anyone who chooses to do their own research! Good luck. :-)

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-30-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Welcome aboard, at-home!

I find Novella and the Science-Based Medicine movement extremely disturbing in the way they gleefully vilify anyone who criticizes or even questions vaccines.

It reminds me of a cult.

They categorize as "anti-vaccine" anyone who criticizes anything about vaccines, including scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles that call into question vaccine safety/efficacy (including the Cochrane Review's Dr. Tom Jefferson). And "anti-vaccine" is about the nicest term they use. They called Jenny McCarthy a "mass murderer." Her crime: she reported her son's seizure reaction to vaccines, subsequent autism diagnosis, and subsequent improvement after being treated for vaccine reaction, and called for safer vaccines ("Green our Vaccines").

Yes, there is science on both sides of the issue--and on both sides, it's flawed. In general, though, the science defending vaccine safety is what many call "tobacco science." It's funded by, set up by, directed by, controlled by, interpreted by, ghost-written by, and marketed by the industry that profits from the product studied.

Take a close look at some of these studies, and you'll find that there is no true control group. Vaccine safety studies compare a group of vaccinated children with...another group of vaccinated children. Studies supposedly looking at a vaccine-autism link compare age oil of vaccinated children with official autism diagnoses with...a group of vaccinated children with symptoms of autism but no official diagnosis. They conclude that they didn't see a link (surprise!), which then translates into article headlines like "Link debunked!" Or "proof there IS NO link!"

You've probably already seen this, but you might compare SBM's approach with that of fourteenstudies.org. Especially the pages pointing out the flaws in the studies that supposedly debunk a vaccine/autism link, and the pages providing studies that indicate a vaccine/autism link.

I found it very helpful to contact epidemiologists at local universities and ask for their opinions (and boy, did they have opinions!). Not one of them agreed that the link was debunked, and they all expressed frustration that the media presents conclusions that are different than those reached by the researchers.
Taximom5 is online now  
Old 07-31-2013, 07:55 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 at-home View Post

My daughters are about to enter first grade and, again, I am forced into the vaccination decision.  I have read, and believed, numerous books and articles regarding the dangers of vaccinations.  In discussing this with my college-aged son, I was surprised to be severely questioned about my beliefs on the subject, which has sent me searching once again.  I came across "Science-Based Medicine" which debunks my current understanding of the vaccination dangers  along with sources I have believed (as well as apparently debunking homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc.).  I cannot find any information about this website or the founder (Steven P. Novella, MD) except articles written by the editors of their own website.  Has anyone researched this?  Who is Dr. Novella and should I listen to him?

Any site that craps all over ALL alternative medicine should be suspect IMO. There is plenty of research supporting the benefits of varies alternative practices particularly chiropractic and acupuncture. 


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 07-31-2013, 08:02 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 teacozy View Post

 

That's not a snippet from a writer of Science Based Medicine.  That is a snippet from a man named Brian Dunning's podcast which was linked on SBM.  

 

You can find things that are worse than that on Anti Vaccine websites.  Here's a nice little gem 

 

"Court orders rape of a child. Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. This is assault without consent and will full penetration too. If we as a society allow this crime to take place, we are every bit as guilty as the judge who made the order and the doctor who carries it out..."

Source: Meryl Dorey - AVN Facebook page, 15 January 2011

 

Now if that isn't BARF I don't know what is.  Comparing a life saving vaccine to rape? Wow I guess over 90 percent of parents in the US have "raped" their children by her definition.  Absolutely disgusting.

 

Meryl Dorey owns the Australian Vaccine Network and says things like this fairly often and then tries to deny she is anti vaccine. 

Actually that comparison makes sense to me. It is comparing Rape which is NON CONSENSUAL ie forced upon you to being forced to inject something into your body (or that of your child) AGAINST  your will.  She is not saying parents that willingly choose to vaccinate their child (ie consenting) are "raping" them. She is saying that a court that forces a parent to do inject something they feel is harmful into their child's body WITHOUT CONSENT is akin to rape. makes sense to me as it is a totaly violation. So not really Barf at all. 


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 07-31-2013, 01:49 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Actually that comparison makes sense to me. It is comparing Rape which is NON CONSENSUAL ie forced upon you to being forced to inject something into your body (or that of your child) AGAINST  your will.  She is not saying parents that willingly choose to vaccinate their child (ie consenting) are "raping" them. She is saying that a court that forces a parent to do inject something they feel is harmful into their child's body WITHOUT CONSENT is akin to rape. makes sense to me as it is a totaly violation. So not really Barf at all. 

 

It doesn't make sense to me.  Since the vaccine is not being forced into the parent then whether or not the parent wants it is irrelevant in the analogy.

 

I don't know any child that *wants* shots. Most kids cry and scream. So as long as a child doesn't want it it's rape if she is using that as an analogy. Therefore the majority of parents have raped their child by forcing them to have a vaccine, which is abhorrent and offensive. 

 

Comparing a potentially life saving vaccine "with full penetration" to a child being sexually assaulted is disgusting. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 02:06 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 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 07-31-2013, 02:10 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 teacozy View Post

 

It doesn't make sense to me.  Since the vaccine is not being forced into the parent then whether or not the parent wants it is irrelevant in the analogy.

 

I don't know any child that *wants* shots. Most kids cry and scream. So as long as a child doesn't want it it's rape if she is using that as an analogy. Therefore the majority of parents have raped their child by forcing them to have a vaccine, which is abhorrent and offensive. 

 

Comparing a potentially life saving vaccine "with full penetration" to a child being sexually assaulted is disgusting. 

whatever - you are splitting hairs. Since an infant cannot make an informed choice about what to put in their body - its the job of it's parent to make that choice for them which is why I put or that of your child in parentheses. Wanting something has nothing to do with the point - which is informed CONSENT. I don't WANT to do or take certain things because they may physically hurt or whatever, but I can make an informed choice to do or take that thing that causes me pain because I feel it's in my best interest, but it's still my choice. The issue is being forced to do something against one's will. I think you are looking at the analogy a bit to literally - but to each his own I suppose.


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 07-31-2013, 02:25 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

whatever - you are splitting hairs. Since an infant cannot make an informed choice about what to put in their body - its the job of it's parent to make that choice for them which is why I put or that of your child in parentheses. Wanting something has nothing to do with the point - which is informed CONSENT. I don't WANT to do or take certain things because they may physically hurt or whatever, but I can make an informed choice to do or take that thing that causes me pain because I feel it's in my best interest, but it's still my choice. The issue is being forced to do something against one's will. I think you are looking at the analogy a bit to literally - but to each his own I suppose.

 

She is the one who used the word rape. She could have just said assault, but she didn't.  She even used the words "full penetration". 

 

Even an administrator at the AVN page said "“I disagree with the rape analogy, but the forcible administration of a vaccine? Vaccines are not compulsory – yet.” 

 

Many people, including people that are anti vaccine were offended by her comments.  

 

She even had to offer an apology later on in the comments “Guys, I apologize if anyone was offended with the rape analogy. I take the issue of rape VERY seriously as two very close family members were raped…”

 

Definition of rape "– noun
; 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse;
 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person; 
3. statutory rape: 
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside; 5. Archaic: the act of seizing and carrying off by force." 

 

For instance, if someone held an adult down and stabbed them with a needle it would not be considered rape.  It would be assault. 

 

In any case, the father wanted his child to be vaccinated.  Why should the mother's opinion hold more weight than the fathers? They are both the child's parents. 

 

It wasn't just a simple case of a court coming into a home and vaccinating against both parent's will. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 02:42 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Using rape as an analogy is abhorrent regardless of what you are comparing. Being sexually violated is not remotely equivilent to being poked with a needle against your will. The original author used it for shock value and it is shocking because of the poor taste of employing a rape analogy. It could be an assault but the author didn't use that word because it isn't as shocking as comparing it to rape. I mean if someone stabs me with a knife (hereby penetrating my body with a knife, I wasn't raped I was assaulted. BIG DIFFERENCE. I agree rape analagy is BARF.

In addition it does the movement she is trying to advance a GREAT disservice. By comparing vaccination to rape the author make themselves look like a tone deaf extermist who is completely out of touch with reality.It makes questioning vaccines easier to dismiss when you can say "yeah they comparing vaccinations to rape" and everyone rolls their eyes and the ridiculousnesst. It is compounded when a rape analogy is defended.
Dakotacakes is online now  
Old 07-31-2013, 02:59 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
My child and future DS are and will not be vaccinated and I think the rape analogy is BARF worthy. It doesn't help the movement and halts communication between the two sides, both of whom care about the welfare of their children. All it does is serve to inflame. Dislike big time!!

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 07-31-2013, 03:15 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post



In addition it does the movement she is trying to advance a GREAT disservice. By comparing vaccination to rape the author make themselves look like a tone deaf extremist who is completely out of touch with reality.It makes questioning vaccines easier to dismiss when you can say "yeah they comparing vaccinations to rape" and everyone rolls their eyes and the ridiculousnesst. It is compounded when a rape analogy is defended.

Bolding mine.  Really?  I hope most people look at the science, philosophy, ethics, etc on the issue and not one sentence from one person when deciding on vaccines for their child.  

 

_____________

 

We could have a field day on this:

 

You could  post crap one side says, I post crap another side say, and we could do this for pages.  (Oh, look, here were are: anti-vaxxers are stupid baby killers.  Baby killing has got to be as vile as a rape analogy, no? http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/07/hey-stupid-fucking-anti-vaccine-baby-killers-stop-killing-our-babies&view=comments)

 

Here Is the bottom line:  Is any site where such things are given space worthy of any consideration when making a decision?  I think the answer is no.  I think anyone who hates the other side that much is not capable of objectivity when they analyze the issues. 

 

 

 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 

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 07-31-2013, 03:38 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."
Martin Luther King Jr.

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 07-31-2013, 06:26 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

A lot of people think that the 'Institute of Science in Medicine' is an industry front group. A lot of MDs went to Yale, and they don't all agree on Vaccines. Novella, Orac (Gorski), etc. They are self described 'skeptics'. Except not skeptical of corporations. They use flamboyant langugage, tons of ad hominem, tons of name calling. I believe getting your Vax info from Novella is sorta like getting it from Mercola, or getting your information on birth from Dr. Amy, or Whapio.

 

Not that these folks contribute NOTHING to the debate, but they are primarily eccentrics who subscribe to a worldview that is outside the realm of 'science'. I consider the 'skeptical' movement to be akin to a religion.  . . .

dinahx is offline  
Old 08-01-2013, 11:58 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

A lot of other people think that the Institute of Science in Medicine is what it says it is: 

 

 

 

Quote:
ISM is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to promoting high standards of science in all areas of medicine and public health. 
 
ISM is organized as a policy institute and “think tank,” comprised of health care professionals, scientists, and researchers in many fields who agree that the best science available should be used to determine health policy and to establish a standard of care that both protects and promotes the public health.  

ISM opposes policies which erode a science-based standard of care and thereby significantly expose the public to fraudulent, worthless, or harmful medical practices and products.

 

 

Although personally I prefer the Cochrane Collaboration for my systematic review needs. :) 

 

The difference between the skeptics movements and religion is that skeptics will change their opinion the basis of new evidence. 


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 08-02-2013, 04:40 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^That is true of TRUE 'skeptics'. Not Orac & Novella's little 'movement'. And the claim that religion never changes its view is um, completely false also. Check out the Pope's latest statements on Same Sex love. (I am not Catholic FTR, just sayin).

Just saw this quote from Michael Crichton:
'Michael Crichton, 2003 lecture at Harvard:
Quote:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 07:43 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

^That is true of TRUE 'skeptics'. Not Orac & Novella's little 'movement'. And the claim that religion never changes its view is um, completely false also. Check out the Pope's latest statements on Same Sex love. (I am not Catholic FTR, just sayin).

Just saw this quote from Michael Crichton:
'Michael Crichton, 2003 lecture at Harvard:

 

He also said 

 

"As for science changing the definition of humanity, that horse left the barn long ago. A pill to relax you, another to pick you up. Jet planes to carry you in comfort quickly to any spot on the planet. And of course with freedom from disease, from vaccination and pharmaceuticals, once you get there.

 

Not so long ago, parents did not name their children for a while, because so many of them died young. Often they posed for pictures with the dead infant, before it was buried. Hawaiians didn't celebrate the birth of a child until it was a year old-a custom still followed today. Not so long ago, one woman in six died in childbirth. Being "human" included these facts of life. 


All that's changed, of course. Nobody's complaining about that part of the impact of science on humanity. " 

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/books-prey-qa.html

 

Guess you take from that that he is anti vaccine? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 08:23 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/books-prey-qa.html

 

Guess you take from that that he is anti vaccine? 

She did not say that.

 

Her quote was on scientists and consensus, and I quite liked it.    

 

I am pretty sure Ben Goldacre is pro-vaccine  but I am quite the fan of some stuff he says. I am not going to stop listening to him or quoting him because he and I have come to a different conclusion on vaccines.  


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 08-02-2013, 08:38 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^I agree. I just found out one of my favorite women locally is ProVax, it doesn't change my overall positive opinion of her . . . This is a complex issue, great folks fall on both sides . . .
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 09:56 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

I found an interesting article on SBM about scientific consensus.  The author of the post is actually disagreeing with the idea of always siding with the scientific consensus. 

 

"A few years back, a Swedish blogger named Martin Rundkvist made a rather provocative observation about skepticism. Specifically, he argued that a “real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.” 

 

Although at the time I saw where Martin was coming from, I found this viewpoint somewhat disturbing, leading me to echo Martin’s own words in response to his own rhetorical question asking whether accepting a scientific consensus is nothing more than “kowtowing to white-coated authority”: Well, yes and no." 

 

It's a bit lengthy of a post, but it is an interesting read.  

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-based-medicine-skepticism-and-the-scientific-consensus/


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:06 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I get the point you are trying to make (that SBM doesn't always side with consensus) but I don't get why anyone on here expects me to click on links from SBM. They are quite extreme & partisan. The namecalling alone could give me palpitations. I have been all over that site & I don't have interest in going back.

That would be like me coming on here & saying 'hey, Dr. Mercola made the most relevant observation today, check it out everyone!' I wouldn't expect that anyone on this forum that was Pro would do so . . . I would expect that link to be skipped. So I guess I object to the characterization of SBM as objective or factual (when they are not), if I have to accept that Mercola & co are partisan, which I feel we all do have to accept.

And before we start in with 'well SBM cites all their articles', Mercola is a HUGE citer . . .
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:27 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

I get the point you are trying to make (that SBM doesn't always side with consensus) but I don't get why anyone on here expects me to click on links from SBM. They are quite extreme & partisan. The namecalling alone could give me palpitations. I have been all over that site & I don't have interest in going back.

That would be like me coming on here & saying 'hey, Dr. Mercola made the most relevant observation today, check it out everyone!' I wouldn't expect that anyone on this forum that was Pro would do so . . . I would expect that link to be skipped. So I guess I object to the characterization of SBM as objective or factual (when they are not), if I have to accept that Mercola & co are partisan, which I feel we all do have to accept.

And before we start in with 'well SBM cites all their articles', Mercola is a HUGE citer . . .

 

Well, no that's not what I was trying to say at all. But I guess if you didn't read the article it might seem that way. 

 

I tried to copy and paste parts of the article that would show his point but I couldn't do it without going way over the word limit. 

 

It was more in response to this quote you posted "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." 

 

I should have been more clear, sorry. 

 

As far as SBM not factual or objective, I obviously disagree.  They do not always use the nicest language but they also don't have a problem with disagreeing with others in their field.  For instance, just the other day I read a post on SBM that was critical of many parts of Paul Offits book and in the same post were very critical of Pharmaceutical companies.  They don't just agree with anything and everything other pro vaccine scientists say or do.  They are capable of independent thought and can be objective. 

 

I don't think I have ever seen on any prominent anti vaccine website the owner of the site criticizing a popular anti vaccine book, for example.  I am not saying it has never happened, I just haven't seen it.  Well there may be some that disagree with Sear's book since (from what I understand, haven't actually read it) he advocates for a spread out schedule and that may irk some who are against all vaccines. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 10:34 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:

Well there may be some that disagree with Sear's book since (from what I understand, haven't actually read it) he advocates for a spread out schedule and that may irk some who are against all vaccines. 

 

 

 

You seen to have a very warped view of what you describe as anti-vax. Very few, if any anti-vaxers are for denying anyone, any vaccination who wants it. All they are trying to do is advocate for the choice not to vaccinate without prejudice.


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 08-02-2013, 11:31 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post


You seen to have a very warped view of what you describe as anti-vax. Very few, if any anti-vaxers are for denying anyone, any vaccination who wants it. All they are trying to do is advocate for the choice not to vaccinate without prejudice.

That is certainly how I feel. I would never try and stop parental rights to vax their kids, I just don't want to be forced to vax my kids. That's why I don't like the term "anti-vax". I think it's very misleading.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 11:50 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Okay, I see your point ProScienceMom. As far as anti vax'ers criticizing each other, you should check out the epic fight between J Crosby & Mark Blaxill right now. I totally object to how SBM & also how AoA characterize J Crosby & agree that AutismOne has become way too much drunken Karoke & too little real change.

There are for me, personally, antiVax books I won't even read because of their over the top, way too partisan viewpoint. I like Dr. Sears, Aviva Romm, & just a few more . . .
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 11:52 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Off to look for the SBM takedown of PO's new book. That book or rather the media coverage of it, led to my friend's DH being all like 'Hand over the Vitamin D, right now!' like it was kiddie contraband.
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-02-2013, 12:27 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

I never said it was a "takedown".  They overall liked the book, after all Paul Offit is a brilliant man.  But they were also able to be critical of some parts.  I am not sure if it is his newest book or not, I haven't read any of his books. 

 

Just a couple examples 

 

"What’s not so good is that Dr. Offit fails to acknowledge adequately that there is good reason why many people distrust pharmaceutical companies. We’ve written about some of those very reasons myself, including pharma ghostwritingseeding trials, and conflicts of interest. Let’s just put it this way. I like Dr. Offit, and I wanted to like this book, but even to me this argument fell flat because it more or less dismissed the contention that not all distrust of pharmaceutical companies is unreasonable or overblown."

 

Another example: 

 

"The first is that Dr. Offit approvingly quotes Steven Milloy twice and Michael Fumento once, both of whom are well known corporate shillsapologists for conservative politics, antienvironmentalists, and anthropogenic climate change “skeptics.” (Indeed, Steve Milloy is known for his famous and dubious “Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.”) Moreover, both have been accused of ties to the very tobacco companies to which Dr. Offit compared antivaccinationists to, and both have conflicts of interest in the form of ties to and/or funding from the industries whose interests they virtually always champion, be it big oil, big pharma, or big tobacco. That they happen to be correct in condemning the antivaccination movement is not a good enough reason to cite them, and Dr. Offit could have made his points just as well without including quotes from such tainted sources. Even though the quotes themselves argue Dr. Offit’s case about science and society and the law, anyone who has skeptically examined the rhetoric of Milloy or Fumento will know that neither of them is a credible spokesman for science-based medicine." 

 

There were more criticisms, but they weren't ones that a lot of you would agree with. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy 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