new study on vaccination belief - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
First ... 2  3  4 5 
Vaccinations > new study on vaccination belief
dalia's Avatar dalia 05:57 PM 10-06-2013
Turquesa:

"Genuinely logical people evaluate arguments and not the people making them."

Yes Yes Yes!!!!!!!

Teacozy:

Ya just had to post that insulting meme even though there was no real reason to do so. Seriously, do you actually think that sort of crap is helpful? I'm sure whoever created that meme really had "the children" in mind... The posting of that just solidified what I have been saying is the intent of this whole thread: to discredit through mockery.

Barf.

teacozy's Avatar teacozy 06:01 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Teacozy:

Ya just had to post that insulting meme even though there was no real reason to do so. Seriously, do you actually think that sort of crap is helpful? I'm sure whoever created that meme really had "the children" in mind... The posting of that just solidified what I have been saying is the intent of this whole thread: to discredit through mockery.

Barf.

 

Oh, but the memes on the front page of this thread calling PVers sheep was super helpful right? Why not call out those memes?  Also, I'm not the one who brought the moon walk meme up.  


dinahx's Avatar dinahx 06:04 PM 10-06-2013
The idea that GMOs = unsafe is an 'extraordinary claim' really betrays next to no knowledge of the transgenic modification process, RoundUp, genetic contamination, etc.

Really the *precautionary principle* would state that before being introduced wholesale into the infant formula supply, something should be proven safe *beyond a shadow of a doubt*.
dalia's Avatar dalia 06:06 PM 10-06-2013
Teacozy:

I don't like those memes either, but to be honest after being called crazy (which is the purpose of this thread) I am kinda feeling more lenient toward my "side". This whole thread is gross. And by the way, pointing out another's wrong does not make you right. Another case of Logic 101.

Surely you can come up with a better argument than "they started it"...
dinahx's Avatar dinahx 06:07 PM 10-06-2013
And doesn't the picture on the VfV memo just *look fake* to anyone else? I have no position on the Moon landing, but I don't put anything past the government & era that detonated 254 atomic bombs on their own soil or deforested an entire nation with Agent Orange! If there's a Gov I trust less than say, your average Gov of today, it would be the Gov of 1945-1975 USA.
dalia's Avatar dalia 06:11 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

And doesn't the picture on the VfV memo just *look fake* to anyone else? I have no position on the Moon landing, but I don't put anything past the government & era that detonated 254 atomic bombs on their own soil or deforested an entire nation with Agent Orange! If there's a Gov I trust less than say, your average Gov of today, it would be the Gov of 1945-1975 USA.

I think I see a "Welcome to New Mexico" sign in the background LOL. Seriously, though, while I do believe we landed on the moon I am not ignorant to the lengths some powers that be will go to harm others for their benefit. It happens.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 06:12 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalia View Post

Teacozy:

I don't like those memes either, but to be honest after being called crazy (which is the purpose of this thread) I am kinda feeling more lenient toward my "side". This whole thread is gross. And by the way, pointing out another's wrong does not make you right. Another case of Logic 101.

Surely you can come up with a better argument than "they started it"...

 

My argument isn't "they started it".  I was questioning why you would call out one meme and not the others.The meme I posted was 1) brought up by someone on "your side" and 2) relevant to the thread at least. 


dalia's Avatar dalia 06:14 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

My argument isn't "they started it".  I was questioning why you would call out one meme and not the others.  At least the meme I posted was 1) brought up by someone on "your side" and 2) relevant to the thread. 

Well that we can agree on. In fact, as I've been saying, it illustrates very clearly the WHOLE POINT of the thread. To generalize a whole group of people into the "crazy" category. Very helpful to the children. Yes, very helpful indeed...
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 06:19 PM 10-06-2013

@Dina 

 

"The idea that GMOs = unsafe is an 'extraordinary claim' really betrays next to no knowledge of the transgenic modification process, RoundUp, genetic contamination, etc." 

 

If he is so sure they are unsafe then why doesn't he publish any of his evidence? 

 

You could have the most brilliant brain surgeon in the world claim that carrots cause brain cancer but until he performs studies and has them peer reviewed in a medical journal his assertions are just that, assertions. Not evidence. 


dalia's Avatar dalia 06:19 PM 10-06-2013
And just for the record, I am not on a "side". I used that word because that's the way this debate always ends up being fought on this board. The only side I'm on is the side of parents and children who wish to do what's best for their families without suffering ridicule and oppression. My BFF is a vaxer, and I fully support her right to do so. I support the right for vaxxing parents to have a place on this forum and to be heard. And I support my right to make my own choices for my family.

I will *never* support threads like this with an obvious intent to mock and divide. Aren't we all parents? Don't we all want what's best? I assure you I am not nutso. I'm just a mom trying to do my best. I do not appreciate being mocked. It is not helpful and changes nothing while children and families continue to suffer.
beckybird's Avatar beckybird 06:37 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

 I haven't seen one person pro vaccine getting emotional about posts in this thread.

Translation: emotional = illogical, unscientific.

Stirring the pot with this one. Your intention here is all too clear.


dalia's Avatar dalia 06:59 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Translation: emotional = illogical, unscientific.
Stirring the pot with this one. Your intention here is all too clear.

Yep. I'm just another woman being hysterical. Just like all those moms who *think* their kids were harmed by vaccines when obviously it was just a coincidence. Vaccines are safe!! (please add sarcastic tone for full effect)
dalia's Avatar dalia 07:00 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

The point of the thread is to debate the study posted. This is a *debate* forum.  If you don't agree with the results in the study then feel free to explain why and provide evidence. Stop attacking the posters that are debating their stance on the study by telling us what we believe or why we are posting on this thread. 

Yes, this is a *debate* forum. Forgive me if I expect actual logical arguments to be presented instead of insults.
dinahx's Avatar dinahx 07:43 PM 10-06-2013
Perhaps next we will see a 'study' on how parents who question vaccines cry more @ sad movies?
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 08:03 PM 10-06-2013
nm

kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 08:20 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The point of the thread is to debate the study posted. This is a *debate* forum.  If you don't agree with the results in the study then feel free to explain why and provide evidence. 

 

The study is useless. I have no idea why it was carried out, except to add fuel to the fire of vaccine wars.  

 

1.  it does not define conspiracy theorist nor does it say what percentage of those who question vaccines are conspiracy theorists.

 

2.  conspiracy theorists can be right.

 

me:  what is 2+2

conspiracy theorist:  4

me - right!  Ding-ding-ding

 

3.  Vaccine decisions should be based on the evidence, or lack thereof.  It is pretty irrelevant whether a "conspiracy theorist" (however that is defined, and my opinion is some people are awfully loose with the term) posts a link or someone else, it is the value of the link that is important.  


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 09:46 PM 10-06-2013
Maybe teacozy and orangeorchids would understand how insulting and irrelevant this "study" is if we were to post similar ones about pro vaxxers. Maybe something along the lines of "pro vaxxers are more likely to believe that one group of people has more value than another."

This whole line of thinking is disgusting, and not worthy of MDC.
beckybird's Avatar beckybird 11:42 PM 10-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

I believe the study was carried out to determine, why people oppose vaccines although science literature for the most part clearly supports the use of them. That does not sound useless to me.

Your remarks seem to be too driven by emotion, potentially skewing your thoughts so I took a look at your claims:

1. Yes, it does define conspiratorial thinking as a form of cognitive style.

2. Irrelevant. The claim is a potential opposition to vaccines due to conspiratorial arguments. There's no conspiracy theories about 2+2 (unless you know something I don't know). It's not about being right, but about being right using conspiracy theories.

3. Bingo. That's the whole argument of the study. Often the best evidence is brought forward by scientists. Many who oppose vaccines do not seem to think so and would rather reach their decision based on propaganda and personal beliefs.

 

That's as much as I could gather from the article, sorry I couldn't be more informative. But who knows, maybe Dr Lewandowsky will become a member one of these days and he can personally answer your questions.

Does this mean that any researcher, doctor, scientist, lay person, parent, etc. who questions/doubts the current scientific consensus is a conspiracy theorist?


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 07:19 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

I think you should post the type of studies if you find them. Maybe in a scientific journal that proves conspiracy theories? Do you know of any?

 

We don't need any more studies.  It's already crystal-clear, based on what all the pro-vaccine people keep saying, over and over.

 

"Vaccines are generally extremely safe, and vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare," coupled with "vaccines should be mandated," and even "those who forego vaccines should be excluded from schools, fired from jobs in health care industries, charged more for group health insurance, and sued when others become ill."

 

There's your proof:  pro-vaccine people believe that those who don't react adversely to vaccines are more important than those who do, simply because there are more who don't.

 

Good news, though (or not):  that is changing.  Because of the ever-increasing vaccine schedule, more and more people are actually having severe vaccine reactions, and the US Department of Health and Human Services is no longer able to keep the issue hushed and gag-ordered.  30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction.  And by "sheer coincidence" (or not),  30 years ago, most people had never even heard of autism.  Today, everyone knows at least one family whose child has profound autism.  Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the government that funds them, these people are sharing their stories, and we are learning that a huge percentage of the children with autism also had documented reactions to vaccines.


teacozy's Avatar teacozy 07:48 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

We don't need any more studies.  It's already crystal-clear, based on what all the pro-vaccine people keep saying, over and over.

 

"Vaccines are generally extremely safe, and vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare," coupled with "vaccines should be mandated," and even "those who forego vaccines should be excluded from schools, fired from jobs in health care industries, charged more for group health insurance, and sued when others become ill."

 

There's your proof:  pro-vaccine people believe that those who don't react adversely to vaccines are more important than those who do, simply because there are more who don't.

 

Good news, though (or not):  that is changing.  Because of the ever-increasing vaccine schedule, more and more people are actually having severe vaccine reactions, and the US Department of Health and Human Services is no longer able to keep the issue hushed and gag-ordered.  30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction.  And by "sheer coincidence" (or not),  30 years ago, most people had never even heard of autism.  Today, everyone knows at least one family whose child has profound autism.  Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and the government that funds them, these people are sharing their stories, and we are learning that a huge percentage of the children with autism also had documented reactions to vaccines.

 

" "vaccines should be mandated"   Evidence please? I don't think I have ever seen any PVer on this forum say they believe vaccines should be mandated for everyone. 

 

"30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction." 

 

Well, now you know one.  I do not know of a *single* person who has ever had a vaccine reaction. No one in my family. No one in any of my friends' family. No one I ever went to school with.  My husband worked with children for 9 years (thousands of students) and never saw a single vaccine reaction or heard of one.  No one in his family has ever had a reaction to a vaccine either and a lot of the older generation even got the smallpox vaccine.  

 

Statistically you are not likely to ever know anyone who has had a severe vaccine reaction. 


Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 07:50 AM 10-07-2013

A bit of a review of what's going on in this thread:

 

Orangeorchids' OP was a link to a study whose clear intent was to discredit and insult those who question vaccines:  "If you distrust vaccines, you're more likely to believe NAS faked the moon landings."

 

Knowing that many members here not only distrust vaccines, but have children who have had adverse reactions to vaccines, orangeorchids seems surprised that they are upset or offended by being branded as crazies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

Why are members against vaccines so sensitive to the posts here? I haven't seen one person pro vaccine getting emotional about posts in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, I have not noticed any offensive posts here.

 

Of course, orangeorchids seems not to have noticed that this entire thread is attacking those who distrust vaccines; we wouldn't expect provaxxers to get emotional about posts calling vaccine questioners crazy.  Would we?

 

And then we have post #119, which, indicates that people who question vaccines MUST be crazy if they don't agree with MOST of the (pharma-funded) science literature;  apparently, we're expected to ignore the independent science that either refutes or calls into question the results of industry-funded/directed studies:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeorchids View Post
 

I believe the study was carried out to determine, why people oppose vaccines although science literature for the most part clearly supports the use of them. 

 

 

Funny.  When we lay the posts out like this, without all the side-tracked distraction-arguments on whether or not the moon landing was faked, or whether or not GMOs might have unforeseen health consequences, the intent to discredit vaccine questioners really becomes very clear.


dinahx's Avatar dinahx 07:57 AM 10-07-2013
TeaCozy: then the odds REALLY must be on my side, b/c I even know someone who was compensated by VICP. Not like 'I met them on the internet', like I met them in a tiny Southern town I happened to live in. I also know someone who wrote a book on Polio, so she met a ton of Vax (OPV) acquired Polio victims.

I would say if you never meet anyone with a Vax reaction of any type then you are either hanging out on Non-Vax island or you are not open to hearing about people's real experiences with vaccines.
Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 07:57 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

" "vaccines should be mandated"   Evidence please? I don't think I have ever seen any PVer on this forum say they believe vaccines should be mandated for everyone. 

 

"30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction." 

 

Well, now you know one.  I do not know of a *single* person who has ever had a vaccine reaction. No one in my family. No one in any of my friends' family. No one I ever went to school with.  My husband worked with children for 9 years (thousands of students) and never saw a single vaccine reaction or heard of one.  No one in his family has ever had a reaction to a vaccine either and a lot of the older generation even got the smallpox vaccine.  

 

Statistically you are not likely to ever know anyone who has had a severe vaccine reaction. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

  I do not know of a *single* person who has ever had a vaccine reaction. No one in my family. No one in any of my friends' family. 

Nope.  Not true.  You know of me.  I've had at least three separate severe vaccine reactions.  And my children, all of whom had documented vaccine reactions.

 

You also know of the people whose reactions have been admitted and compensated by the US Department of Health and Human Services, because that has been posted here many times, and you know of the people whose reactions have been reported to VAERS.

 

And if you had school-age children, you would know families in your school district and/or church whose children have had reactions.


They might not tell you about their reactions.  But that doesn't mean you don't know people who have had reactions, no matter how much you misuse statistics.


teacozy's Avatar teacozy 08:12 AM 10-07-2013

@ Taximom 

 

This is a vaccine forum. Of course the number of people who have had a reaction is going to be skewed.  This is not a representation of the general public.  If I went on a brain tumor forum there would probably be many many people posting who have brain tumors.  But in real life I don't know of anyone who has ever had a brain tumor.  To tell people " I know 30 people with brain tumors" without mentioning I know them from a brain tumor forum would sound ludicrous if I wasn't an Oncologist. 

 

You said a bad reaction to vaccines. I know of people who get mild fevers for a day or two. Maybe some soreness or redness. I do not know of anyone who has had a severe reaction.  If a child at church had a severe reaction to a vaccine, we would know about it.  There are open prayers at every service.  My dad has been at the same church for almost 30 years. Never seen or heard of any reaction. 


kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 09:37 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

@ Taximom 

 

This is a vaccine forum. Of course the number of people who have had a reaction is going to be skewed.  This is not a representation of the general public.  If I went on a brain tumor forum there would probably be many many people posting who have brain tumors.  But in real life I don't know of anyone who has ever had a brain tumor.  To tell people " I know 30 people with brain tumors" without mentioning I know them from a brain tumor forum would sound ludicrous if I wasn't an Oncologist. 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Once upon a time I wondered if the percentage of people on MDC who had a child with a vaccine reaction was skewed.  Did people who experience vaccine reactions tend to congregate on specific sites?  The answer seems to be a soft yes, but (and it is a big "But") there are plenty of stories on non-vaccine, mainstreams boards where people discuss their childs vaccine reaction.  Here is a huge thread from just this week:

 

http://www.cafemom.com/group/advice/forums/read/19137008/Has_a_vaccine_caused_serious_side_effects_to_your_child?next=1


Marnica's Avatar Marnica 09:51 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

" "vaccines should be mandated"   Evidence please? I don't think I have ever seen any PVer on this forum say they believe vaccines should be mandated for everyone.

 

"30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction."

 

Well, now you know one.  I do not know of a *single* person who has ever had a vaccine reaction. No one in my family. No one in any of my friends' family. No one I ever went to school with.  My husband worked with children for 9 years (thousands of students) and never saw a single vaccine reaction or heard of one.  No one in his family has ever had a reaction to a vaccine either and a lot of the older generation even got the smallpox vaccine.

 

Statistically you are not likely to ever know anyone who has had a severe vaccine reaction.

Are you unable to use the quote function? Just curious. I find reading your posts confusing.

 

In any event. The reason the above is true is simply because of how you are defining a reaction. It's the same reason the medical community says that severe reactions are one in a million. If you deny something is a reaction, then you don't have to count it. Asides from your own family and that of your husband, You are not likely to know the personal medical information of the thousands of students he worked with, nor of your own classmates.

 

I have had a vaccine reaction. I do not discuss it with anyone.


Mirzam's Avatar Mirzam 09:55 AM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
 
 

Are you unable to use the quote function? Just curious. I find reading your posts confusing.

 

In any event. The reason the above is true is simply because of how you are defining a reaction. It's the same reason the medical community says that severe reactions are one in a million. If you deny something is a reaction, then you don't have to count it. Asides from your own family and that of your husband, You are not likely to know the personal medical information of the thousands of students he worked with, nor of your own classmates.

 

I have had a vaccine reaction. I do not discuss it with anyone.

 

This. 


teacozy's Avatar teacozy 10:28 AM 10-07-2013

I was responding to Taximom's comment "30 years ago, nobody had even heard that vaccine reactions were possible. Today, everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction."  

 

And I said I don't *know of* anyone who has had a severe reaction to a vaccine, and I haven't.  Statistically, it's not likely that I would because they are so rare.  Maybe we have a different definition of severe or bad reaction? 

 

To state that "everybody knows someone whose family member has had a bad reaction" is a pretty extraordinary claim.  Care to back that up with any evidence that isn't anecdotal? 


teacozy's Avatar teacozy 11:05 AM 10-07-2013

@mama24-7  Please read the debate forum guidelines.

 

"Personally directed negative comments will not be tolerated. Discuss the topic and not the individual." 

 

Please edit your post or you will be flagged. 


mama24-7's Avatar mama24-7 12:38 PM 10-07-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

@mama24-7  Please read the debate forum guidelines.

 

"Personally directed negative comments will not be tolerated. Discuss the topic and not the individual." 

 

Please edit your post or you will be flagged. 

 

Right, and the topic is how someone could not see something that is available to be seen, as evidenced by my mentioning another person. Also, I don't see what you have decided is "negative." The only thing I can think that might be negative is the sentence I started w/, "Maybe."  But it'd only be negative if were actually true.  I won't be editing my post at this time & you are welcome to discuss it w/ a mod if you see fit.

 

Have a nice day!

Sus


First ... 2  3  4 5 

Up