"The One Study to Rule Them All" and why it would never work - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 07:59 AM
 
crayfishgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Asking for a true placebo study is not the same as the type of study your OP listed.  She did not say she wanted a double or triple blind randomised study - did she?

 

"True control group" may or may not mean she wants a randomised control group.  She did not say - you did not ask for clarification,  you are assuming.  Again. 

 

Except that a true control group is a randomized control group. 

teacozy likes this.

Camille~
Mama to F (3/09) and S (3/11); and never forgetting my babe gone too soon angel1.gif(4/10).

crayfishgirl is offline  
#32 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 08:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayfishgirl View Post
 

 

Except that a true control group is a randomized control group. 

 

Teacozy could have asked for clarification.  She did not.  She could have asked for clarification on the thread from mama24-7- she did not.  She quoted someone from another thread where the poster does not even know they are being quoted and does not have the opportunity to clarify or defend  her position…so…yeah.   :irked

 

In any event, does true control group equal randomised control group?  Gray zone.

 

I googled define "true control group"  and got nada.  I googled control group and got numerous hits, none of which imply the group has to be randomised.  If you have a definition that shows a "true control group" must be randomised, I would like to see it.  


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  
#33 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 08:45 AM
 
crayfishgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

In any event, does true control group equal randomised control group?  Gray zone.

 

Its not a gray zone if your design and statistics are valid.  Randomization and independence of samples are integral to almost all statistical procedures/tests, and violation of those assumptions invalidates the results.  These are my go-to resources, but any basic stats textbook would tell you the same thing:

 

Zar, JH.  1999.  Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edition.  Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 663 p.

Sokal, RR and FJ Rolf.  Biometry: The principles and practices of statistics in biological research, 3rd edition.  WH Freeman, 880 p.


Camille~
Mama to F (3/09) and S (3/11); and never forgetting my babe gone too soon angel1.gif(4/10).

crayfishgirl is offline  
#34 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 08:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayfishgirl View Post
 

 

Its not a gray zone if your design and statistics are valid.  Randomization and independence of samples are integral to almost all statistical procedures/tests, and violation of those assumptions invalidates the results.  These are my go-to resources, but any basic stats textbook would tell you the same thing:

 

Zar, JH.  1999.  Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edition.  Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 663 p.

Sokal, RR and FJ Rolf.  Biometry: The principles and practices of statistics in biological research, 3rd edition.  WH Freeman, 880 p.

 

:yeah

 

Like she said, you can find this in any basic textbook but here are other sources :

 

"

For an experiment to be classed as a true experimental design, it must fit all of the following criteria.

  • The sample groups must be assignedrandomly.
  • There must be a viable control group.
  • Only one variable can be manipulated and tested. It is possible to test more than one, but such experiments and their statistical analysis tend to be cumbersome and difficult.
  • The tested subjects must be randomly assigned to either control or experimental groups." 

http://explorable.com/true-experimental-design

 

"

TRUE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS must employ the following:

  • Random selection of subjects
  • Use of control groups
  • Random assignments to control and experimental groups 
  • Random assignment of groups to control and experimental conditions

In order for an experiment to follow a true-experimental design, it must meet the preceding criteria." 

 

"True Experimental Design: A true experimental design is one in which the researcher manipulates the Independent Variable (or variables) to observe its effect on some behavior or cognitive process (the dependent variable) while using random assignment of participants to groups in order to control external factors from influencing the results. Without both manipulation of the IV and random assignment of participants, you do not have a true experimental design and, as a result, can't establish cause and effect." 

 http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=True%20Experimental%20Design


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#35 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 09:13 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayfishgirl View Post
 

 

Its not a gray zone if your design and statistics are valid.  Randomization and independence of samples are integral to almost all statistical procedures/tests, and violation of those assumptions invalidates the results.  These are my go-to resources, but any basic stats textbook would tell you the same thing:

 

Zar, JH.  1999.  Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edition.  Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 663 p.

Sokal, RR and FJ Rolf.  Biometry: The principles and practices of statistics in biological research, 3rd edition.  WH Freeman, 880 p.

 

I am looking for an online definition where it says true control group= randomised control group.   You could be right, but I like to verify things, you know?  Thanks for looking, though.

 

teacozy said she sees people asking for studies such as the one outlined in the original OP regularly - and quoted mam24-7 from another thread to prove her point.  We have 2 options:

 

1.  Mama 24-7 meant it exactly the way teacozy interpreted it.  

2. Mama-24-7 meant something different by "true control group" than randomised, double blind control group. We don't really know, do we?

 

It does not matter if a small percentage of non-vaxxers will not accept any study, it does not matter that a small percentage of non-vaxxers might want something others see as unreasonable. The bottom line is most non-vaxxers do not think the studies they have seen are convincing, overall.  Defending why there is a derth of quality vaccine information or rationalising why studies can't be better doesn't change that.  

Mirzam and BeckyBird 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  
#36 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 10:17 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)

@kathymuggle 

 

You're splitting hairs here.  If you want to test a single ingredient against a control group the study design would have to be randomized to give accurate results.  

 

How do you think it would work otherwise in a perfect world? 

 

This seems to be what is being implied should happen. I am going to use aluminum as an example here.  You get a couple thousand kids whose parents chose not to vaccinate and use them as the control group and give them a saline injection.  Then what? Who would get the saline + aluminum injection?  Probably not parents who are against vaccines right? But then parents who are pro vaccine wouldn't want that either because their child wouldn't be able to get any other vaccines on the schedule at all without confusing the results because then you wouldn't know which (if any) adverse effects are from a particular vaccine or from the aluminum. 

 

And if you are looking at long term effects it gets even trickier because as an adult you wouldn't be able to get any vaccines either if we are trying to test the safety of a single ingredient against a placebo control. 

 

So I really would like to know how exactly you (general NVer you) think a study like this should go? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#37 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 10:55 AM
 
crayfishgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

It does not matter if a small percentage of non-vaxxers will not accept any study, it does not matter that a small percentage of non-vaxxers might want something others see as unreasonable. The bottom line is most non-vaxxers do not think the studies they have seen are convincing, overall.  Defending why there is a derth of vaccine information or rationalising why studies can't be better doesn't change that.  

 

I think that you're right in that it doesn't matter.  However, I think that the point of the original post is that the "convincing study" that non-vaccinating parents seem to want to see is not feasible from a design or statistical standpoint.  And by "convincing", I mean one that examines all aspects of vaccine ingredients.  I don't think that its rationalizing either (which means justification of something that is untrue)....its just a statement of fact.  A study that examines the effect of all ingredients and their potential impact on health is just not possible (which I think the original post detailed well).

 

As an aside, and without wanting to end this discussion (although I think its on its way there anyway), I generally stay out of the vaccine discussions because I don't find the conversations to be all that productive (and often become hostile).  From my point of view, I don't think that there is a dearth of vaccine information, and I understand why others who feel similarly become frustrated with people who feel evidence supporting vaccine effectiveness is lacking.  At the end of the day though, regardless of our opinion on vaccine science, we all love our children and make choices for them based on our tolerance to risk. That your choice is different than mine doesn't mean one of us is a better mother or loves our child more.


Camille~
Mama to F (3/09) and S (3/11); and never forgetting my babe gone too soon angel1.gif(4/10).

crayfishgirl is offline  
#38 of 49 Old 09-27-2013, 01:51 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)

Hmm, I almost feel famous or something.  Is this the internet equivalent of talking about someone behind their back? :dizzy

 

For the record, and I've said it elsewhere, I don't need studies, well designed, w/ or w/o control groups, double, triple (there's triple blind studies? hell, then I'd want ten times blind!), or anything else studies (I've said this on MDC.  I'm not sure if I said it in general or just relating to c-sections but I have said it at least in reference to c-sections and since we see people like to make assumptions based on what I say, it doesn't really matter, does it! :rotflmao).  I feel humans would be far better off if we put all the energy that is put into studies into figuring out what will truly make people healthy rather than trying to find short cuts. 

 

I went back to read what I was quoting when I said what I said.  I was responding to being told "I shouldn't worry."  Um, I have very high standards (most do not) and I don't like it when someone tells someone what they should or shouldn't do.  Do you know me or the countless others who will read what you wrote? Do you know my/their children? Do you know anything about any of us? Then how can you tell someone that they should or should not worry about anything if the answer is no to any one or more of the previous questions?  You can't but you think you can.

 

You were talking about one ingredient.  You are saying that it is not possible to study one ingredient?  Um, okay.  Again, doesn't mean any other person who chooses to "shouldn't worry."  And, honestly, I don't worry!  I just don't inject it into myself or my children & voila! No worrying necessary!

 

Yes, I said what I said, and more or less, I meant it as I typed it.  I work hard to say what I mean (but can not account for those who make assumptions and/or read into what I wrote or take things personally, etc.) which is why I don't post as many actual posts and I write in my head! What I said is the ideal, IMO.  Some say it's not possible.  Okay, and?  Does that mean that there should be no effort to get close?  If that's the case & by that logic, then since I believe breastfeeding by ones mother is the ideal, if a child can't be breastfed under those circumstances, the child should die?  Hell no!  But I don't think that logic is often applied to what I see in these threads.  Just because you have decided you have no reason to worry, doesn't mean the next person doesn't.  WHy do you feel you can tell people what they should/shouldn't worry about? 

 

Again, you can scream it from the roof tops until the cows come home, it's not convincing me of anything, accept that you feel you can tell people what to do w/o knowing much of anything about them.  And, by not asking questions and especially by quoting me & not even telling me, tells me you aren't really interested in discussing it!

 

Sus

 

Edited: changed a "too," to, "to," and, "what into," to, "into what."  


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#39 of 49 Old 09-28-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

Even if the other health habits of non-vaccinating families couldn't be separated for in a study (which they can, perhaps not perfectly and completely, but they can), shouldn't we still know, don't we deserve to know the health outcomes of unvaccinated children vs. normally vaccinated children? We have a crisis right now in children's health. Not just autism, but ADHD, learning disabilities, allergies, asthma, autoimmune diseases. If unvaccinated children have a fraction of those problems, the public deserves to know that.

And if unvaccinated children have a fraction of those problems, the vaccine manufacturers and the government that funds them and acts as their marketing team  (and is partially staffed by vaccine manufacturer representatives) will do whatever they can to keep the public from finding out.

 

We've already seen quite a lot of evidence that they are doing exactly that.

BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#40 of 49 Old 09-30-2013, 01:23 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,848
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I agree. Nobody was arguing this though. Studies aren't done to make particular impressions on non-scientists. And nobody is using the fact that this One Study can't exist as an excuse to avoid doing further research. This post was an attempt to explain to non-scientist non-vaxers why certain types of studies cannot be conducted. (I would assume that non-vaxers who have a background in science would be aware of these principles already.) And it's not just about randomization, either; even if you did a study comparing kids of non-vaxers to the kids of pro-vaxers who otherwise have similar lifestyle choices, it's also the issue of this additive vs that additive vs saline vs any shot at all. It's also the issue of ethics; it is not considered ethical to withhold the standard of care from patients, and vaccines are the standard of care. It's also the issue of the size of groups necessary to show a difference between groups. It's a whole lot of different issues. That is the point of this original post: to outline the different issues. To try to give a little insight into what is involved in scientific research. Set your personal standards wherever you want as to what evidence you will accept, but if you choose to set them in a place so high that scientific research can't reach, it's disingenuous to blame science because you can't understand or don't want to understand or just don't care about how research is conducted and its limitations. 

erigeron, please avoid making negative characterizations against people. Edit your post to remove such comments or you will be removed from the thread. 


cynthia mosher is offline  
#41 of 49 Old 09-30-2013, 04:19 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think that there's a point being missed here, which is not just that such a study *can't* be done, it's that it doesn't *need* to be done.  There are certain practical and ethical limitations to all kinds of medical research, not just when studying vaccines, but that doesn't mean that we can't find ways to effectively and safely treat and cure diseases.

moderatemom is online now  
#42 of 49 Old 09-30-2013, 06:30 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

I think that there's a point being missed here, which is not just that such a study *can't* be done, it's that it doesn't *need* to be done.  There are certain practical and ethical limitations to all kinds of medical research, not just when studying vaccines, but that doesn't mean that we can't find ways to effectively and safely treat and cure diseases.

First of all, vaccines neither treat nor cure diseases.

 

Second of all, the thousands and thousands of VAERS reports, of cases presented for publication, and of, yes, anecdotal reports show that vaccines are not safe ENOUGH.  For that matter, vaccines, we are now learning, are not effective ENOUGH.

 

Theoretically, we shouldn't have to do a vax vs. unvaxxed study because it should be acknowledged that the vaccines aren't safe enough because some people have had deadly or debilitating reactions. Rather than quibbling about how many people having these reactions are too many, those reactions should be acknowledged as being TOO MANY.

 

It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody (government official, doctor, MDC member, ANYBODY) says, "Oh, that number is vanishingly small, and it's worth it to sacrifice those lives."  

Nobody has the right to say so.

 

Instead, what is happening is that the industry is bending over backwards to deny that these reactions happen, and they are covering them up when they do happen, with the help of the US government.

 

The fact that there is ample evidence of government and industry coverup should make us all stop and think a bit.  How would a pro-vaxxing mom feel if the government covered up evidence that vaccination damaged her baby?  Well, this formerly pro-vaxxing mom is pretty upset.

 

If it's neither practical nor ethical to study the safety of an invasive procedure, then the safety of that procedure is certainly called into question.  But if the BELIEF that it's neither practical nor ethical stems from a bunch of lies from the industry that profits from making and selling that procedure, we should certainly question why we are even listening to that industry in the first place.

Mirzam, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#43 of 49 Old 09-30-2013, 07:17 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

First of all, vaccines neither treat nor cure diseases.

 

Second of all, the thousands and thousands of VAERS reports, of cases presented for publication, and of, yes, anecdotal reports show that vaccines are not safe ENOUGH.  For that matter, vaccines, we are now learning, are not effective ENOUGH.

 

Theoretically, we shouldn't have to do a vax vs. unvaxxed study because it should be acknowledged that the vaccines aren't safe enough because some people have had deadly or debilitating reactions. Rather than quibbling about how many people having these reactions are too many, those reactions should be acknowledged as being TOO MANY.

 

It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody (government official, doctor, MDC member, ANYBODY) says, "Oh, that number is vanishingly small, and it's worth it to sacrifice those lives."  

Nobody has the right to say so.

 

Instead, what is happening is that the industry is bending over backwards to deny that these reactions happen, and they are covering them up when they do happen, with the help of the US government.

 

The fact that there is ample evidence of government and industry coverup should make us all stop and think a bit.  How would a pro-vaxxing mom feel if the government covered up evidence that vaccination damaged her baby?  Well, this formerly pro-vaxxing mom is pretty upset.

 

If it's neither practical nor ethical to study the safety of an invasive procedure, then the safety of that procedure is certainly called into question.  But if the BELIEF that it's neither practical nor ethical stems from a bunch of lies from the industry that profits from making and selling that procedure, we should certainly question why we are even listening to that industry in the first place.

 

Yes, I realize that vaccines do not treat nor cure diseases...they prevent the spread of diseases.  The point is that the same practical and ethical limitations are at play with vaccine research as in other types of medical research.  The point is that even when we have to work around these limitations, acceptable and adequate research can and has been done to show that vaccines are safe and effective.  Are they PERFECTLY safe and effective?  No, nothing is, but good public policy can't require perfection, or we wouldn't have improved public health to the huge degree that we have.

moderatemom is online now  
#44 of 49 Old 10-01-2013, 12:37 PM
 
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 ModerateMom View Post
 

 

Yes, I realize that vaccines do not treat nor cure diseases...they prevent the spread of diseases.  The point is that the same practical and ethical limitations are at play with vaccine research as in other types of medical research.  The point is that even when we have to work around these limitations, acceptable and adequate research can and has been done to show that vaccines are safe and effective.  Are they PERFECTLY safe and effective?  No, nothing is, but good public policy can't require perfection, or we wouldn't have improved public health to the huge degree that we have.

You forgot to add "In my opinion" - which has kind of been the point of this whole thread.

BeckyBird 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  
#45 of 49 Old 10-01-2013, 02:00 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
 

You forgot to add "In my opinion" - which has kind of been the point of this whole thread.

 

 Oh well, Taximom forgot, as well.

moderatemom is online now  
#46 of 49 Old 10-01-2013, 02:35 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

And, really, opinions aren't the point of this thread.  The point is that sound medical research can be done even given the practical and ethical limitations...it is done every day and saves peoples lives every minute. 

moderatemom is online now  
#47 of 49 Old 10-01-2013, 03:18 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

And, really, opinions aren't the point of this thread.  The point is that sound medical research can be done even given the practical and ethical limitations...it is done every day and saves peoples lives every minute. 

The point of this thread is whether sound medical research can be done around vaccines and even if the research is sound - is it enough?

 

Can sound research be done on vaccines? Sure -it is possible.

 

Is the research typically sound?  That is up for debate.  I posted a link on INV earlier today on how CIDRAP looked at a bunch of flu vaccine studies and decided the vast majority were not acceptable for inclusion in their analysis. Cochrane reviews also has grave reservations on the quality of flu vaccine studies.

 

If it is sound - is that enough?  It depends.  If the studies answer what you want answered -then yes; if not, then no.

 

ETA: cidrap link

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/10/strict-meta-analysis-raises-questions-about-flu-vaccine-efficacy

BeckyBird 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  
#48 of 49 Old 10-01-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

And, really, opinions aren't the point of this thread.  The point is that sound medical research can be done even given the practical and ethical limitations...it is done every day and saves peoples lives every minute. 

So you are willing to pretend that the research associated with vaccines is sound?  Bully for you.  

 

Let's take the flu shot as an example.  Even the Cochrane Review--the gold standard of MAINSTREAM medical review--has complained that the existing studies  are shoddy, and that the flu shot is ineffective.  The lead researcher, Dr. Tom Jefferson, has vehemently denied that his group recommends the flu shot, and complains that research findings have been distorted in order to push flu shots.


"The inactivated vaccines should work in theory, just like many things work in theory, but real evidence suggests they are not having the desired effect. So far we have distortion of research findings, evidence-free statements and evidence-free policies supporting coercion of human beings. What next?" http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Opinion+Scientist+fires+latest+shot+mandatory+vaccine+debate/7572719/story.html

Yet we are being exhorted by doctors, health insurance companies, news media, and our own government to get this flu shot, and we are being told that it's our "best shot" at fighting the flu.  Health care companies are firing workers who refuse this invasive procedure, in spite of the fact that the Cochrane Review concluded that there is NO evidence that vaccinating health care workers protects patients.

 

And this is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg, wherein a powerful industry tries to force not only the sale of its product but the administration of invasive medical procedures--and lies about the risks, about the safety, about the efficacy, even about the NEED for the procedures.

 

And people are waking up to these tactics, and starting to realize that vaccines are more dangerous than we've been led to believe.  It would be hard for them NOT to realize this, as more and more people are seeing children from their families, from their neighborhoods, from their churches, and children of their work colleagues, have serious reactions to vaccines.

 

Those who deny this simply haven't yet seen it for themselves.  I know I didn't believe it at first, either.

BeckyBird likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#49 of 49 Old 10-02-2013, 10:54 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 ModerateMom View Post
 

And, really, opinions aren't the point of this thread.  The point is that sound medical research can be done even given the practical and ethical limitations...it is done every day and saves peoples lives every minute.

 

Actually opinions are an important part of this thread. Perhaps I overstated saying they were the entire poinnt. As Kathy and Taximom have pointed out, what a person may accept as sound research will differ and well, is a matter of opinion.

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like 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  
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