vaccination debate and the information age…. - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-09-2014, 10:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

It is fun to go back 10 years in the MDC vaccine archives.  Many posts had a real sense of "let's figure out the science of this together."  There certainly was some bickering, but it also seemed like there was a lot of discovery as well. 

 

I don't see that now, and I do not only think it only comes down to board culture and politics.  

 

Consider this graph

 

 

The Internet really opened up ease of getting information for many, many people.

 

In earlier years of the Internet, it really was like "Wow!  Look at the info that is out there!"  What do you make of it?"

 

In 2014 most people have had Internet access for a good number of years.  We do not have the same sense of discovery.  The info is out there, it is easy to access in many ways, and the vast majority of people have either made up their minds on vaccines or are willfully ignorant.   

 

Discussions around science will not be the way of the future in regards to vaccine debate - ethics and law will.

 

Thoughts?


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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-09-2014, 01:30 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

Discussions around science will not be the way of the future in regards to vaccine debate - ethics and law will.

 

Enter Dorit Reiss.

ma2two is offline  
Old 03-09-2014, 02:18 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

 

Enter Dorit Reiss.

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

In earlier years of the Internet, it really was like "Wow!  Look at the info that is out there!"  What do you make of it?"

 

 

Thoughts?

 

WOW has been replaced by FEAR and that brings HATE-IMO

 

Once "antidotal" (I test no immunity in each presence despite getting MMR each time) is now totally inaccurate EXCEPT when it can be used to show "tons" of (.3%)UN-vaccinated have autism.

 

Once rare now shown to not be is dismissed too. Documented outbreaks among vaccinated now mean regardless of percentage of effectiveness it has to be better than ZERO effectiveness. What was once deemed excepted information from the medical community, not the uneducated other side is even twisted to fit a new agenda.

 

BUT I see the real frontier in what ma2two said, those who are the driving force behind extremism. I can no longer read ANY vaccine news story and not see comments that if used with another subject would be viewed as pure hate crimes. Use to be more rare but now each story has comments that are inciting of violence and loss of parental rights, etc. Followers use to be just the ones making these statements, now it is the authors of these "news" article and articles.

 

I see total lack of information for those who vaccinate that is even accurately put out in a deliberate manner.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

It is fun to go back 10 years in the MDC vaccine archives.  Many posts had a real sense of "let's figure out the science of this together."  There certainly was some bickering, but it also seemed like there was a lot of discovery as well. 

 

I don't see that now, and I do not only think it only comes down to board culture and politics.  

 

 

Thoughts?

 looking back I don't see that either, I see in one section even withholding of information at times that I just shake me head at and wonder……other times I see things that remain posted and if the subject matter was not vaccines IMO would never be permitted 

 

ETA- I also see a lot of non-medical related "stuff" with vaccine poo-pooed often in favor of more western medicine now vs years ago.


 

 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  
Old 03-09-2014, 05:33 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)

 

 


"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 03-09-2014, 07:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

 

Enter Dorit Reiss.

Lol, yes, but IMHO the shift from exploration to ethics predates Dorit Reiss.  


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 03-09-2014, 09:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

 

ETA- I also see a lot of non-medical related "stuff" with vaccine poo-pooed often in favor of more western medicine now vs years ago.

I think this is due to the"skeptic" movement.  Some pro-vaxxers are also skeptics.  Skeptics don't only take their aim at vaccines - they do not like most "alternative" medicine.


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 03-10-2014, 01:45 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Why do they call themselves skeptics, when they all seem to fully, without question, support the current mainstream positions? Where is the skepticism? It seems to be reserved only for the alternative positions.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 03-10-2014, 08:00 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Why do they call themselves skeptics, when they all seem to fully, without question, support the current mainstream positions? Where is the skepticism? :dizzyIt seems to be reserved only for the alternative positions.

I would love to know too. I see definitions change to suite needs-IMO


 

 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  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:49 AM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Why do they call themselves skeptics, when they all seem to fully, without question, support the current mainstream positions? Where is the skepticism? It seems to be reserved only for the alternative positions.

 

I was a part of skeptic forums when they first emerged. They were usually religion-focused. Skeptics identified as atheist or agnostic and a lot of the focus was on debating religion and religious ideas. The one board I was a part of had a huge and active creation/evolution subforum. I learned a lot there. They also had a general science subforum that, yes, supported western medicine and eschewed alternative or complementary medicine - although there were certainly skeptics in favor of alternative treatments.

 

I have no idea what the skeptic movement is now. Are there mainstream positions other than those related to medicine that you see them in support of?

cwill is offline  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwill View Post
 

 

I was a part of skeptic forums when they first emerged.

Are you still - and if not, why?

 

While you do not post frequently, I have always thought your posts were quite respectful, which is *very* different from any skeptic site I have seen (although I have not seen a lot).  

 

In terms of vaccination, I do not think skeptics sites have made a great contribution.  I think their tone is sufficiently off putting that the only people they are preaching to is the choir.  They have helped to increase polarization (as have others) which really does not serve parents well.  


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 03-10-2014, 03:21 PM
 
cwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Are you still - and if not, why?  


I'm not. First, because the big forum shut down. But also because the offshoots that sprung from it were brutal. They were largely unmoderated and people could be incredibly vicious. I really had to adjust and tone down the snark when I started posting other places. So maybe it's a symptom of the culture that when they try to inform they resort to snark. That's just the tone they're used to using.  I'm just speculating though. I occasionally find myself at respectful insolence and that's really it when it comes to people writing about vaccines. I have no idea who Dorit Reiss even is.

 

 

 

 

cwill is offline  
Old 03-11-2014, 03:16 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

This thread makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure there's any direct UA violations, so I haven't flagged anything but I would really like to ask people to replace "skeptic" with "antivax", and perhaps flip "western" and "alternative" medicine and think about how the conversation would make them feel then. 

 

Kathymuggle - I read from your OP that you think science is irrelevant to the vaccination question these days. I apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement that 

 

"Discussions around science will not be the way of the future in regards to vaccine debate - ethics and law will."

 

If that's not what you mean could you clarify. And if it is can I ask for more clarification on why you think that. 

 

With apologies for quoting a known skeptic (you can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella), but I think this is a good quote. This is what I see as science (and the reason for my username, which I still keep meaning to ask to chance to sciencemum…).

 


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 03-11-2014, 05:20 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

This thread makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure there's any direct UA violations, so I haven't flagged anything but I would really like to ask people to replace "skeptic" with "antivax", and perhaps flip "western" and "alternative" medicine and think about how the conversation would make them feel then. 

 

 

 

 

I resent this! I am not a skeptic and don't need to be labeled to make you feel better. They are not interchangeable  and should not be use to mean the same.

 

 I don't see that words need or should be flipped to mean something else.


 

 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  
Old 03-11-2014, 07:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
 

This thread makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure there's any direct UA violations, so I haven't flagged anything but I would really like to ask people to replace "skeptic" with "antivax", and perhaps flip "western" and "alternative" medicine and think about how the conversation would make them feel then. 

 

I did it.  I flipped the conversation for both posts upthread where I used the word skeptic.  The posts would not make me feel bad or angry.  I might qualify the word "anti-vax"with the word "some" in post #1, but otherwise it is good to go.

 

As per the second post, I think it holds - particularly if we are talking the more rabidly anti-vax (not just vaccine critical)  and rabidly skeptic sites.      It is my opinion, and I do not think it is offensive.  I do think it could make a good discussion, though.

 

 

1.  "I think this is due to the"anti-vax movement" movement.  Some non-vaxxers are also anti-vax. Some Anti-vaxxers don't only take their aim at vaccines - they do not like most "western" medicine.

 

2.  In terms of vaccination, I do not think anti-vax sites have made a great contribution.  I think their tone is sufficiently off putting that the only people they are preaching to is the choir.  They have helped to increase polarization (as have others) which really does not serve parents well."

 

 

 

Kathymuggle - I read from your OP that you think science is irrelevant to the vaccination question these days. I apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement that.

 

"Discussions around science will not be the way of the future in regards to vaccine debate - ethics and law will."

 

If that's not what you mean could you clarify. And if it is can I ask for more clarification on why you think that. 

 

With apologies for quoting a known skeptic (you can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella), but I think this is a good quote. This is what I see as science (and the reason for my username, which I still keep meaning to ask to chance to sciencemum…).

 

 

 

I do not think vaccine-science is irrelevant, but I do think it will be discussed less in vaccine forums in the future than it was in the past.
 
To quote myself form earlier:
 

"The Internet really opened up ease of getting information for many, many people.

 

In earlier years of the Internet, it really was like "Wow!  Look at the info that is out there!"  What do you make of it?"

 

In 2014 most people have had Internet access for a good number of years.  We do not have the same sense of discovery.  The info is out there, it is easy to access in many ways, and the vast majority of people have either made up their minds on vaccines or are willfully ignorant."

 

Why do I think this?  Personal observation.  Not a study - so take it as you will ;)  A few points off the top of my head on how I have come up with this hypothesis:

- the recent study currently circulating showing that discussing pro-vax talking points with non-vaxxers did not change their course of action

-a poll from about a year ago on MDC where most respondents said they were not in decision mode

-experiences off MDC, but still online, where it is very clear most peoples minds are made up.

-on MDC, I find a trend towards less threads about science and more about ethics.

 

Where I do think science will still be discussed is when our understanding of a vaccine and/or diseases is changing.  Pertussis is a good current example.  

 

 

 

 


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 04-06-2014, 03:05 PM
 
Galatea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 7,153
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Zombie thread returns...

I was active on MDC from 2004-8 and it seemed much more anti-vaxx then. I did not vaxx my kids until about 2 years ago, and have since caught them up on most of the shots, one at a time. I changed my mind slowly, over time, while not using the Internet/social media to research this topic at all, except to read the CDC's catch up information.

What has surprised me in the interim is how vitriolic the pro-vaxx side has become. The common attitude of "if you don't vaccinate, you are an idiot who is killing people" is very off-putting and counter-productive if you actually want rates to come back up. Such a dogmatic approach will not convert those who are skeptical of vaccines. I was surprised to see that tone here (though I see it all the time on reddit, whose members think they know everything.)

What is especially offensive to me is the idea that vaccines=science. Science is a way of knowing, not an answer. I think we can have real, scientific questions about which vaccines are more important, or relatively safer than others, or better schedules to follow, and still not be idiots who are trying to kill other people's kids with our "woo."

I'd also really like to be able to go into the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum to get information without seeing all sorts of mean name-calling and denigrating of other MDC members. It makes me feel unwelcome and does not reflect what this place is about.

DS1 2004 ~ DS2 2005 ~ DD1 2008 ~ DS3 2010 ~ DD2 born at 31 weeks Oct. 2014
Galatea is online now  
Old 04-06-2014, 05:18 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 Galatea View Post

Zombie thread returns...

I was active on MDC from 2004-8 and it seemed much more anti-vaxx then. I did not vaxx my kids until about 2 years ago, and have since caught them up on most of the shots, one at a time. I changed my mind slowly, over time, while not using the Internet/social media to research this topic at all, except to read the CDC's catch up information.

What has surprised me in the interim is how vitriolic the pro-vaxx side has become. The common attitude of "if you don't vaccinate, you are an idiot who is killing people" is very off-putting and counter-productive if you actually want rates to come back up. Such a dogmatic approach will not convert those who are skeptical of vaccines. I was surprised to see that tone here (though I see it all the time on reddit, whose members think they know everything.)

What is especially offensive to me is the idea that vaccines=science. Science is a way of knowing, not an answer. I think we can have real, scientific questions about which vaccines are more important, or relatively safer than others, or better schedules to follow, and still not be idiots who are trying to kill other people's kids with our "woo."

I'd also really like to be able to go into the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum to get information without seeing all sorts of mean name-calling and denigrating of other MDC members. It makes me feel unwelcome and does not reflect what this place is about.

 

Welcome back! 

 

Do you mind posting the specific threads you're talking about from the VOS forum that are attacking MDC members? 

 

"I'd also really like to be able to go into the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum to get information without seeing all sorts of mean name-calling and denigrating of other MDC members. It makes me feel unwelcome and does not reflect what this place is about."

 

Did you mean the INV forum? Because we actually had a discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed to be written on the support forums on this thread not long ago (http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1399405/is-it-fair-to-criticize-individuals-in-support-only-forums)

 

You can see for yourself that for the most part, the members of the "I'm not vaccinating" forum were the ones who didn't want rules made to tone down the atmosphere of the support forums. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 04-06-2014, 07:26 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

Quote:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galatea View Post

Zombie thread returns...

I was active on MDC from 2004-8 and it seemed much more anti-vaxx then. I did not vaxx my kids until about 2 years ago, and have since caught them up on most of the shots, one at a time. I changed my mind slowly, over time, while not using the Internet/social media to research this topic at all, except to read the CDC's catch up information.

What has surprised me in the interim is how vitriolic the pro-vaxx side has become. The common attitude of "if you don't vaccinate, you are an idiot who is killing people" is very off-putting and counter-productive if you actually want rates to come back up. Such a dogmatic approach will not convert those who are skeptical of vaccines. I was surprised to see that tone here (though I see it all the time on reddit, whose members think they know everything.)

What is especially offensive to me is the idea that vaccines=science. Science is a way of knowing, not an answer. I think we can have real, scientific questions about which vaccines are more important, or relatively safer than others, or better schedules to follow, and still not be idiots who are trying to kill other people's kids with our "woo."

I'd also really like to be able to go into the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum to get information without seeing all sorts of mean name-calling and denigrating of other MDC members. It makes me feel unwelcome and does not reflect what this place is about.
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Welcome back! 

 

Do you mind posting the specific threads you're talking about from the VOS forum that are attacking MDC members? 

 

"I'd also really like to be able to go into the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum to get information without seeing all sorts of mean name-calling and denigrating of other MDC members. It makes me feel unwelcome and does not reflect what this place is about."

 

Did you mean the INV forum? Because we actually had a discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed to be written on the support forums on this thread not long ago (http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1399405/is-it-fair-to-criticize-individuals-in-support-only-forums)

 

You can see for yourself that for the most part, the members of the "I'm not vaccinating" forum were the ones who didn't want rules made to tone down the atmosphere of the support forums. 

 

I thought Galatea was quite clear that she was talking about the "Vaccinating on Schedule" forum.

I'd start giving examples of "Vaccinating on Schedule" posts that denigrate vaccine critics, but I'm going to hold off for now, as I do feel as though we vaccine critics are being baited here.

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 04-06-2014, 07:44 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)

She specifically stated that there were threads attacking MDC members on the VOS forum.  

 

Since that is a violation of mothering guidelines for all forums, I'd like to see those threads she's talking about. 

 

In any case, I haven't read or heard of any updates from CM or the other mods about what the rules are for the support forums, and that thread was made a couple weeks ago. 

 

Any updates? I think it'd be nice to have a clear understanding of what is and isn't allowed on those forums. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:06 PM
 
moderatemom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Why do they call themselves skeptics, when they all seem to fully, without question, support the current mainstream positions? Where is the skepticism? It seems to be reserved only for the alternative positions.

 

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Skeptic movement, but I will say that it's not that they support the mainstream positions, it's that they support the positions that they believe have the most scientific support (through the scientific method), which generally tend to be the mainstream positions but aren't always.  For a long time there was a lot of debate about climate change, for instance, but the "skeptics" tended to support that it existed.  Turns out it looks like they were right.  "Skeptic" in this instance has a very specific meaning, it's not just about being skeptical for the sake of it. 

moderatemom is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:16 AM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I think the information age has altered the face of not just the vaccine debate, but all health related concerns. We (as a patient/client/consumer) are able to find information much easier than ever before, and HCP have a duty to be aware of this. I think it helps me because it keeps me on my toes. I need to be aware of the latest information, because I know the families and patients I work with have access to it as well. 
I agree that there is less of "let's figure this out together" mindset, which is a shame, because it SHOULD be like that. 

 

rainbownurse is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:38 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbownurse View Post
 


I agree that there is less of "let's figure this out together" mindset, which is a shame, because it SHOULD be like that. 

 

you can't have what you are suggesting as long both sides are not even using the same "page", "book", what ever you want to call it

 

Reactions are viewed as extreme so that is a mute point. The constant insistence  that my unvaccinated child is a germ bomb threat designed to blow at any moment - that means that side is closed to everything and can not even entertain the thought of anything else, so there can not be "let's figure it out together" when your starting point is already at an extreme closed up prospective-IMO

 

Autism is brought up here by one side that see vaccines as a factor, the other side wants to "talk about it" excluding vaccines play any role-period - I can't grasp why the NO connection side even posts here vs posting their "thoughts" in the health section except they wish to attack those they disagree with and discredit us at every chance.

 

There is no let's figure it out mindset IMO, nothing remotely close.


 

 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  
Old 04-11-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Totally agree, RN. The providers who will get left behind in the dust are those who make patronizing remarks about Dr. Google or make the blooming obvious statement that you can't believe everything you read on the internet, (no different from saying that you can't believe everything you read at the library).

My CNM works with this Info Age and not against it. In the info folder for prenatal clients, she includes a one-page write-up on how to evaluate online sources and studies. Another page lists her personal favorite sites on topics like prenatal health, childbirth, and breastfeeding, (nothing on vaccines, though). I think this is a sensible approach for providers of any discipline. You'll never stop someone from getting and believing bad information. But if you establish a trusting relationship with people, they'll respect your recommendations on how to navigate their way through online sources.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 09:50 AM
 
rainbownurse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Totally agree, RN. 

I didn't realize my SN shortened to that until JUST now. 

rainbownurse is offline  
Old 04-11-2014, 10:51 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

you can't have what you are suggesting as long both sides are not even using the same "page", "book", what ever you want to call it

 

Reactions are viewed as extreme so that is a mute point. The constant insistence  that my unvaccinated child is a germ bomb threat designed to blow at any moment - that means that side is closed to everything and can not even entertain the thought of anything else, so there can not be "let's figure it out together" when your starting point is already at an extreme closed up prospective-IMO

 

Autism is brought up here by one side that see vaccines as a factor, the other side wants to "talk about it" excluding vaccines play any role-period - I can't grasp why the NO connection side even posts here vs posting their "thoughts" in the health section except they wish to attack those they disagree with and discredit us at every chance.

 

There is no let's figure it out mindset IMO, nothing remotely close.


:yeah

 

I think this is an important point.  

 

No matter what we bring up--our own children's medically documented vaccine reactions, tens of thousands of similar reports corroborating our own experience, science strongly suggesting a link (not proving a cause, but clearly showing a link), science demonstrating a mechanism, etc--we are immediately shot down.  There is no sense of "hey, wait a minute, maybe there is something to that, let's look into it and see what we can find."  

 

No, it's "you imagined your own child's reaction, " "you must have missed the early signs of autism," "autism parents are just looking for something to blame," THE Science shows otherwise," and "any scientist corroborating your position is going against the vast majority, therefore (s)he must be a rogue scientist, and we don't pay attention to those."

 

Oh, and accusations of variously named fallacies get thrown around, even when they don't apply, which seems more like an attempt to shut people up than to discuss the issue.

It's very difficult to deal with someone who hasn't seen what I've seen, who hasn't lived what I've lived, and who automatically rejects the admittedly flawed science that supports my position (while just as automatically accepting the equally-or-even-more-flawed science that does not support it), yet they still think they should tell me I'm totally wrong.  Not one shred of "could there possibly be something valid there?" "could scientists have missed something?"  or even "could *I* have missed something?" but knee-jerk "it's not accepted by mainstream scientists/politicians, so it must be wrong, and oh, yeah, let's not even say that our science doesn't support it--let's say our science REFUTES it!  Let's say that it DRIVES ANOTHER NAIL INTO THE COFFIN OF THAT THEORY (even though it doesn't) because that sounds so much more authoritative!"

 

Add to that the political movement by Dorit Reiss, Paul Offit, Art Caplan, etc., to eliminate all vaccine exemptions, and

 

Well, I'd better stop before I get really upset.
 

 

Except it's too late.

Taximom5 is online now  
 
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