Study: "Pro-Vaccine" Messages Not Changing Minds - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 11:28 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I am not sure where you are getting "A LOT" from.  I suspect it is an assumption.  From what I remember from a study I read (google-fu skills are failing me) selective/delayers rank as being the most knowledgeable (as defined by mainstream questionnaires) on vaccines, then non-vaxxers, while the vaccinate-on schedule were the least knowledgeable on vaccines.  
 

 

Do you know who knows more about vaccines than non-vaxers, vaccinate on schedule parents, and sel/delayed parents?  

 

Epidemiologists. Immunologists. Infectious disease experts.   Do you know what their overwhelming scientific/professional/medical consensus is on vaccines?  That they are safe and effective and save lives.  

 

How many parents that refuse vaccines do you think could pass a graduate level exam on immunology? Epidemiology? How many non vaccinating parents do you think have the expertise and knowledge to create a life saving vaccine that works? 

erigeron, Chaika and Frioct3 like this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#32 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 11:42 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

The first time I heard that herd theory was when it was obvious that I had made up my mind on the basis of common sense and decided not to vaccinate against the swine flu, 1975-6. 

 

The only time I have heard the herd theory invoked against me was when it was obvious the scary disease tactics were not going to work. The person who invoked it against me has suffered from a lifetime of rheumatoid arthritis and has had several knee and hip surgeries to keep her off of a cane or crutches all of her life. Autoimmune disease?

 

The herd theory is manipulated bunk.  It is obvious that invoking the state of nature, community-minded, conscientious aspect of immunity is not working for many. 

It is medically unethical to require and deliver a medical procedure to an all ready healthy person that may endanger their present healthy condition - vaccines being legally unavoidably unsafe


It is medically unethical to give a medical procedure to a healthy person to protect an unhealthy person. That has never been acceptable.

 

When fully vaccinated people get the disease they are fully vaccinated against, and never vaccinated people never get ill, there is something else at work here, and we know it is not the immunologists or vaccine manufacturers.  It is the mythmakers.  Passing a graduate level examination in epidemiology, immunology does not allow for the many variations that exist in the typical human population. How many of those people are parents? Yes, being a parent matters very much.  Anyone who disagrees is very wrong. Ask Hannah Poling's father who works for Johns Hopkins.

 

We can spend years reading stacks of double blind, long term, scientific studies, but in the end, the real question uses common sense - what are my own personal risks and benefits of this procedure because I am going to live with it, not the herd, the community or even the doctor and drug company who benefit financially from this procedure that is being directed at me?  The errors and casualties add up quickly when people do not act in their own best self interest.


"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  
#33 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Do you know who knows more about vaccines than non-vaxers, vaccinate on schedule parents, and sel/delayed parents?  

 

Epidemiologists. Immunologists. Infectious disease experts.   Do you know what their overwhelming scientific/professional/medical consensus is on vaccines?  That they are safe and effective and save lives.  

 

How many parents that refuse vaccines do you think could pass a graduate level exam on immunology? Epidemiology? How many non vaccinating parents do you think have the expertise and knowledge to create a life saving vaccine that works? 

 

You mean like this immunologist?

 

 

Quote:

I am very concerned that “successful” prevention of childhood diseases by means of short-term protective effects of live attenuated viral vaccines during childhood has led to the loss of maternal ability to transfer immuno-protection to their young, thereby leaving infants vulnerable to those diseases, should the exposure occur.

I am also very concerned that vaccination campaigns work by disrupting disease transmission, which reduces the chances of exposure, rather than by establishing a population’s immunity. By doing so, vaccination campaigns wipe out population’s immunity to childhood diseases rather than help to maintain it. If in prior decades there was naturally established herd immunity to childhood diseases among the adult population, then I am afraid that vaccination campaigns have ensured that it is long gone.

 

Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, author of the book “Vaccine Illusion” earned her PhD in Immunology at Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Stanford University in California.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

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

Mirzam is online now  
#34 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 12:27 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

I'm afraid this study ultimately will be used as a justification to create laws that will force people to get vaccinations (since the few that  reject all of them won't listen to "reason").

 

There appears to be a plan:

 

1)  Tighten then eliminate philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions for children. Make it so only medical exemptions are accepted, but also next-to-impossible to obtain.

 

2) Force (adult) doctors, nurses, and daycare workers to get vaccines as a condition for working.

 

3) Force everyone to get vaccines, or else they can't leave their homes or get a job.

 

The "authorities" will say that they had to do it because of us dangerous .3%, and make up some dramatic stories of  hand-wringing behind the scenes and supposed crises of consciousness and splash this all over the mainstream media.

applejuice likes this.

Chicharronita is offline  
#35 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 12:33 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Excellent, Mirzam.
Quote:
Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, 

.... is also a parent. Yes, it makes a huge difference. When that child is handed to you, you know that child depends on you, the parent, to make the correct decisions for them. There are several other professionals at many levels who would agree with Dr. Tetyana.

Maybe, someday, all immunologists will be prohibited from being or becoming a parent since it interferes with their interpretation of double blind, long term scientific data.

Quote:
2) Force (adult) doctors, nurses, and daycare workers to get vaccines as a condition for working. 

Sadly, add to that list the poorly paid people who work with food handling in any level or capacity, and then the people who work with your clothes, your home, and all jobs, eventually.


"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  
#36 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 12:48 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The difference is that you are making a decision for another person (a child) and that decision potentially affects and puts other people at risk.

  

Yes, my child.  That is my right as a parent.  Occasionally, the health of the child may trump parental right - and CPS gets involved -  but until that point people need to butt out.  ;)  Now, obviously, I am on a discussion board so I am voluntarily talking about it, but a patient does have the right to say to a doctor "I am not going to do it - discussion over."  

 

 

 

"One may argue that a doctor might feel he has to go over xyz before performing a procedure - and I can understand that - but a non-vaxxer is not asking a doctor to do anything. "

 

It's kind of like the difference between taking a recommended antibiotic from a doctor and refusing that antibiotic.  Which one of those things is a doctor going to end up really trying to make sure you understand the risks and benefits of more thoroughly?  If you take their recommendation or decline their recommendation? 

 

Antibiotics are used to treat an actual illness, vaccines are prophylactic.  

 

Personally, I am not certain a doctor should spend more time on something when you decline their recommendations that when you accept.   If all options are equally viable (which I am sure you reject, but I don't) then the process of informed consent should not vary much whether you decline or refuse it.  These are the vaccines  - these are the pros and cons.  These are the diseases - these are their stats.  If you go beyond that, then you are trying to convince someone to change their mind - and I am not overly keen on proselytizing.  

 

ETA: I am not saying people shouldn't discuss vaccines with their health care provider.  Indeed, I suspect the vast majority of sel/del and non-vaxxers have discussed their decision with their HCP.  I have discussed it with several HCP.   I am saying that they should not be forced to discuss things beyond their desire to.

applejuice and sassyfirechick 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  
#37 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 12:52 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Do you know who knows more about vaccines than non-vaxers, vaccinate on schedule parents, and sel/delayed parents?  

 

Epidemiologists. Immunologists. Infectious disease experts.   Do you know what their overwhelming scientific/professional/medical consensus is on vaccines?  That they are safe and effective and save lives.  

 

Appeal to authority.

 

If they intend to come and live in my house and deal with any consequences of vaccinating or not vaccinating, then we can discuss it.  

 

People who do not bear the consequences  for the decision do not get to make the decision.  


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  
#38 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 02:08 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Appeal to authority.

 

If they intend to come and live in my house and deal with any consequences of vaccinating or not vaccinating, then we can discuss it.  

 

People who do not bear the consequences  for the decision do not get to make the decision.  

 

Straw man.  

 

I never said anything about experts making the decision for you. 

 

Your post was speculating about who knew more about vaccines between NV and VOS parents, and my response was that in that context it's irrelevant.  There are thousands and thousands of experts all over the world who know exponentially more about the immune system, vaccines, and infectious diseases than either group.  And the overwhelming consensus among them is that vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.   It's an important point, and I stand by it. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#39 of 72 Old 03-15-2014, 07:01 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Straw man.

 

I never said anything about experts making the decision for you.

 

Your post was speculating about who knew more about vaccines between NV and VOS parents, and my response was that in that context it's irrelevant.  There are thousands and thousands of experts all over the world who know exponentially more about the immune system, vaccines, and infectious diseases than either group.  And the overwhelming consensus among them is that vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.   It's an important point, and I stand by it.

Nice catch and edit with the removal of "among all of them" where I bolded because even you know that not ALL of these experts agree about the safety and efficacy.

 

And I think the point was, no one makes parents jump through hoops to vaccinate; you don't have to watch a slideshow, take an online test, or print out a certificate proving you've been educated about vaccines.  You simply go in and get vaccinated.  If the system treated all equally, non vaxxing parents would get the same treatment - say no, end of discussion.  Instead the non-vaxxing are the ones made to feel inadequate and uneducated, told they need to watch slideshows, read pamphlets, basically bend over backwards while someone makes every attempt possible to "educated them" and change their mind. 

sassyfirechick is online now  
#40 of 72 Old 03-18-2014, 01:03 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Appeal to authority.

 

If they intend to come and live in my house and deal with any consequences of vaccinating or not vaccinating, then we can discuss it.  

 

People who do not bear the consequences  for the decision do not get to make the decision.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Straw man.  

 

I never said anything about experts making the decision for you. 

 

 


Not a straw man at all, but a valid argument.

Doctors who bear absolutely ZERO consequences if vaccines injure my child have no right to try to convince me to vaccinate, no matter how much pharma-sponsored, pharma-funded, pharma-ghost-written, and pharma-marketed studies they want to use as propaganda, and they have no right to refuse to treat my unvaccinated child if he needs medical care.  

Now, if ALL parents had to watch graphic films showing what happens when a child does have a severe reaction to vaccines, I wonder how many would choose to vaccinate?

Taximom5 is offline  
#41 of 72 Old 03-20-2014, 10:42 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 


Not a straw man at all, but a valid argument.

Doctors who bear absolutely ZERO consequences if vaccines injure my child have no right to try to convince me to vaccinate, no matter how much pharma-sponsored, pharma-funded, pharma-ghost-written, and pharma-marketed studies they want to use as propaganda, and they have no right to refuse to treat my unvaccinated child if he needs medical care.  

Now, if ALL parents had to watch graphic films showing what happens when a child does have a severe reaction to vaccines, I wonder how many would choose to vaccinate?

 

Her response was the definition of a straw man.  

 

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#42 of 72 Old 03-20-2014, 11:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Epidemiologists. Immunologists. Infectious disease experts.   Do you know what their overwhelming scientific/professional/medical consensus is on vaccines?  That they are safe and effective and save lives.  

 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."  Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

Vaccine effectiveness varies, widely.  If we define effectiveness as anything above zero or placebo, then I suppose you could say they are "effective" but without discussing individual vaccines and individual numbers, such statements are worthless.

 

Let's not overstate.


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  
#43 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 01:05 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#44 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 01:57 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
 The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.

Yes it does.  I guess it depends on your definition of unsafe.

It is tremendous leap of logic to compare getting vaccinated with flying in an airplane and taking a bath. There are viable alternatives to flying such as traveling by Amtrak, Greyhound, and car and no one will deny you a public education or deny you healthcare if you refuse to fly.

 

How about using the, "taking a risk every time you cross the street", analogy, as if you cross the street blindfolded? Vaccines are a potentially dangerous medical procedure that the medical profession has used the government to force on us peasants to maintain their profits. It is 18th century technology. There is nothing scientific about vaccination, and you cannot compare the risk of vaccination with anything else.

 

Ever hear of an implied warranty?  Vaccines do not even make the cut for that definition. Doctors imply that you will not get an infectious disease from getting a vaccine, yet  to be completely honest, every vaccine carries the risk of getting the disease you are vaccinated against in varying degrees in addition to getting chronic neurological and autoimmune conditions listed on the package insert. If you do have one of any of the thousands of possible side effects, you will be told -

 

1.) it is one in a million

2.) it is a co-incidence and has nothing to do with the vaccine

3.) it is psychosomantic - all in your head.

 

Yet across the globe, the same stories of side effects in every culture and language are told by patients and parents alike, so it is a conversion disorder or mass hysteria. I will take my chances with disease. I like the odds.

dbsam, Turquesa, Taximom5 and 2 others like this.

"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  
#45 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 02:36 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.

This not a glass half full/glass half empty comparison - if it is not 100% safe, it's not safe.  You can call it mostly safe, essentially safe, largely, often, frequently, generally, and for the most part safe...but to claim they are SAFE is false.  To make the statement that something is "safe and effective" gives the implication that it's absolute, there are no risks.  Even doctors in their pre-vaccination speech should not phrase it that "the vaccination is safe....BUT...there may be side effects" - it's contradictory and that statement alone should raise eyebrows!  Perhaps something along he lines of "this vaccination is generally seen as safe but there are some risks you should be aware of" would be a better approach, but it's not the one being taken by most doctors.

 

As for planes - everyone knows planes have a potential to crash (or now just disappear), many people are afraid to fly because it's a known fact and it doesn't matter how infrequently it occurs.  What the vaccine industry has done is painted a picture that there are no risks involved and many people truly believe no reaction has ever occurred at the mercy of a vaccination.  False image is the big issue here. Always trying to place blame elsewhere, never owning up to the responsibility they have to the entire population.  We debate social responsibility all the time - where does theirs fall?  How is it in any way socially responsible to lie to people or even to stretch the truth beyond its reality?

sassyfirechick is online now  
#46 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:00 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

This not a glass half full/glass half empty comparison - if it is not 100% safe, it's not safe.  You can call it mostly safe, essentially safe, largely, often, frequently, generally, and for the most part safe...but to claim they are SAFE is false.  To make the statement that something is "safe and effective" gives the implication that it's absolute, there are no risks.  

 

"

safe

 adjective \ˈsāf\

: not able or likely to be hurt or harmed in any way : not in danger

: not able or likely to be lost, taken away, or given away

: not involving or likely to involve danger, harm, or loss

 

Medical Definition of SAFE

: not causing harm or injury; especially: having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability <a list of drugs generally regarded as safe> "
 
 
Saying something is safe does not mean it is risk free.  A "safe" neighborhood does not mean there is zero risk that your house/car will get broken into.   The way you guys are trying to define safe is rather absurd.  Virtually nothing is safe when using that definition.  Getting out of bed in the morning isn't safe. Eating isn't safe. Walking around your house isn't safe. Taking a bath isn't safe. Cooking pasta isn't safe. 
 
 

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#47 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Excellent points, SFC. During the AIDS scare, we heard about safe sex. Then safe sex became "safer sex" when we realized that condoms,like vaccines, could fail to do their job. Maybe the vaccine program would look more trustworthy if the parties running it used language that was less absolutist and more realistic. Maybe saying "mostly safe and somewhat effective" doesn't sound as catchy, but nobody should mislead the public just to accomplish a pithy sound bite.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#48 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
It looks the Colorado House turned a deaf ear to the research today. House members who voted for this bill, just like Voices for Vaccines and other leading bill supporters
, are apparently all about evidence . . . until they're not.

It would have been refreshing to see everybody take an intellectually honest look at this study and pull the plug on this legislation. But that would have required admitting they were wrong, wouldn't it? eyesroll.gif
applejuice and Taximom5 like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#49 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:15 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)

Darn quotes within quote (no bashing - I do it too - I need to stop).

My original is in black, Tea is in blue, my response is in red.

 

 

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere.   The first hit was CSI and the second was Skeptical Raptor.  There were a bunch of others who are very clearly pro-vax saying similar things, but I am not seeing WHO or Cochrane say such things.  Until I see others wise, I think it is a pithy statement pro-vaxxers like to throw around.    

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

I went to the trouble of reading her article, even though I do not think she is credible.  Her argument is that some products are unavoidably or inherently unsafe, but that does not make them defective.  Umm…whatever.  I knew that.  No new information here.  

 

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

Both bathing and flying are not 100% safe.  They have risks (as does everything, one might argue) but I do them anyways because I:

 

-get something out of it (unlike a tetanus vaccine for example, where I fully expect to get nothing out of it due to the fact almost no one gets tetanus.  It is so incredibly rare)

-can quantify the risks, unlike vaccine risks which are very hard to quantify given industry funded studies, limitations with reporting issues, etc.  

 


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  
#50 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:27 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

Well unless I'm cooking up some GMO's on my Teflon pan while walking on glass attempting to avoid falling objects.....pretty sure cooking and eating a meal within the confines of my home is pretty darn safe :wink  Vaccines on the other hand are much more of an unknown risk.

applejuice and Taximom5 like this.
sassyfirechick is online now  
#51 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 03:35 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Darn quotes within quote (no bashing - I do it too - I need to stop).

My original is in black, Tea is in blue, my response is in red.

 

 

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

I am not sure that is the consensus. It might be a pithy little statement they use in a watered down way with the public, but I sincerely hope it is not their nuanced position.

 

That vaccines are safe and effective is the scientific consensus.  It's not a matter of opinion. 

 

Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere.   The first hit was CSI and the second was Skeptical Raptor.  There were a bunch of others who are very clearly pro-vax saying similar things, but I am not seeing WHO or Cochrane say such things.  Until I see others wise, I think it is a pithy statement pro-vaxxers like to throw around.    

 

The supreme court has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." 

 

"Unavoidably unsafe" is a legal term, and doesn't mean what NVers think it does.  Here's a link that goes into it more in depth. It's written by Dorit Reiss. http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2013/11/vaccines-and-unavoidably-unsafe-products.html

 

I went to the trouble of reading her article, even though I do not think she is credible.  Her argument is that some products are unavoidably or inherently unsafe, but that does not make them defective.  Umm…whatever.  I knew that.  No new information here.  

 

 

Ever read a vaccine insert?  All vaccines carries risks of severe and permanent damage - they are not safe.  You may argue they are "safer" than the disease (Not necessarily true IMHO, and very hard to measure) but that is not the same thing as safe.

 

The fact that they carry a small of risk does not make them unsafe.  Taking a bath is not dangerous just because there's a small risk you could pass out and drown.  Flying is extremely safe.  An analysis was done in the 90s that concluded that even if you flew every single day of your life, it would statistically take 19,000 years to get into a plane crash.  Indeed, flying in a plane is significantly safer than driving the same distance but also just safe in general. 

 

Both bathing and flying are not 100% safe.  They have risks (as does everything, one might argue) but I do them anyways because I:

 

-get something out of it (unlike a tetanus vaccine for example, where I fully expect to get nothing out of it due to the fact almost no one gets tetanus.  It is so incredibly rare)

-can quantify the risks, unlike vaccine risks which are very hard to quantify given industry funded studies, limitations with reporting issues, etc.  

 

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule.

 

Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and scientific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe. The committee’s review did not reveal an evidence base suggesting that the U.S. childhood immunization schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders.

 

In this most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, the IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule, which should help to reassure a diverse group of stakeholders. Indeed, rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#52 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 06:12 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

Bolding mine:

 

"are among the most safe and effective"  is not the same as safe and effective.

 

Flying is among the safest way to travel…that does not make it safe, just safe relative to other forms.

Mirzam, applejuice and Taximom5 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  
#53 of 72 Old 03-21-2014, 06:43 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

"

safe

 adjective \ˈsāf\

: not able or likely to be hurt or harmed in any way : not in danger

: not able or likely to be lost, taken away, or given away

: not involving or likely to involve danger, harm, or loss

 

Interesting.  The defintion you picked could be either able or likely - you are taking it one way, I another.

 

I decided to google what other dictionaries said, to see if there was a consensus and found this:

 

http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+safe&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=pucsU9eUKOiM8Qfz1YHQCw

 

First defintion:

 protected from or not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed or lost.
 
 
 
 
2nd
 definition
 
 

secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk

 

 

So, there does not seem to be consensus on what the word safe means. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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  
#54 of 72 Old 03-22-2014, 09:29 AM
 
SweetSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Westfarthing
Posts: 5,080
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Medical Definition of SAFE

: not causing harm or injury; especially: having a low incidence of adverse reactions and significant side effects when adequate instructions for use are given and having a low potential for harm under conditions of widespread availability <a list of drugs generally regarded as safe> "
 
 
Saying something is safe does not mean it is risk free.  A "safe" neighborhood does not mean there is zero risk that your house/car will get broken into.   The way you guys are trying to define safe is rather absurd.  Virtually nothing is safe when using that definition.  Getting out of bed in the morning isn't safe. Eating isn't safe. Walking around your house isn't safe. Taking a bath isn't safe. Cooking pasta isn't safe.

Amongst botanists, a blackberry is not a berry at all.  Neither is a blueberry, huckleberry or strawberry.  "Berry" has a very specific definition in scientific communities which is *not at all* how the general public uses the term.  

 

 
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

Well unless I'm cooking up some GMO's on my Teflon pan while walking on glass attempting to avoid falling objects.....pretty sure cooking and eating a meal within the confines of my home is pretty darn safe :wink  Vaccines on the other hand are much more of an unknown risk.

Roundup... BPA...

 

I am certainly not knocking the argument, but when we have such stellar examples as these as bastions of "GRAS", I think the scientific community and the government need to do more for their own credibility in this regard, and this forced consumption of the same information does nothing to advance the public trust.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

People do not like being told what to do (even if it is just "watch this  hour long video")  - it could cause them to dig in their heels. 

:Sheepish I will admit I am that person.  Not proud of it.  I have to watch myself, or I might just jump off a bridge because someone told me NOT to do it!

applejuice likes this.

Give me a few minutes while I caffeinate.
SweetSilver is online now  
#55 of 72 Old 03-22-2014, 10:05 AM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It strikes me that by teacosy's definition our kids are also "safe" from most vpds, as well, vaccine or no.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#56 of 72 Old 03-22-2014, 12:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Don't have time to respond to everything, have some errands to run.

 

"Please link to where it is said this is the scientific consensus.  Make it a perfectly legitimate health or science site, please.   I googled "the scientific consensus is vaccines are safe and effective" and got nowhere. 

 

Is the Institute of Medicine legitimate enough?  This is their consensus report on vaccines that says : 

 

Details

Activity: Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule
Type: Consensus Report

 

"Vaccines are among the most safe and effective public health interventions to prevent serious disease and death. 

 

This report is the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date. The IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule.

 

Upon reviewing stakeholder concerns and scientific literature regarding the entire childhood immunization schedule, the IOM committee finds no evidence that the schedule is unsafe. The committee’s review did not reveal an evidence base suggesting that the U.S. childhood immunization schedule is linked to autoimmune diseases, asthma, hypersensitivity, seizures, child developmental disorders, learning or developmental disorders, or attention deficit or disruptive disorders.

 

In this most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, the IOM committee uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the childhood immunization schedule, which should help to reassure a diverse group of stakeholders. Indeed, rather than exposing children to harm, following the complete childhood immunization schedule is strongly associated with reducing vaccine-preventable diseases." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

 



This is an example of consensus at a government agency, not the consensus among all scientists to which you were referring upthread.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#57 of 72 Old 03-22-2014, 06:57 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

So, to sum up, tea's argument is that vaccines are "among the most safe and effective means of preventing disease and death," with the other safe and effective means of preventing disease and death being things like hand-washing, proper nutrition, and staying home when you're sick, none of which have any health risks at all, unlike vaccines.  

 

Oh, and other part of her argument is that the consensus at the government agency (a government staffed by politicians whose campaigns were funded by the vaccine industry) which promotes the vaccine program is that we should buy the vaccines.  Because the vaccine industry says that they are safe and effective.

 

Nope.  I'm not convinced yet.

Taximom5 is offline  
#58 of 72 Old 03-23-2014, 12:31 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
The whole point of this thread is that it's understood there are people who will never be convinced.

Nevertheless vaccines have been found time and time again by the vast majority of scientists and experts to be very safe and to have efficacy (of varying degrees depending on which vaccines you're talking about it). Not very snappy on a poster, but "Vaccines are safe and effective" does sum it up.

It's not just teacozy's argument, it's the argument made by basically everyone with the right expertise to make it (and now someone will throw out a handful of MDs or scientists with other opinions - it's a big world and the internet is an amazing tool to connect minority groups and opinions).
teacozy likes this.

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 online now  
#59 of 72 Old 03-23-2014, 10:48 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The whole point of this thread is that it's understood there are people who will never be convinced.

Nevertheless vaccines have been found time and time again by the vast majority of scientists and experts to be very safe and to have efficacy (of varying degrees depending on which vaccines you're talking about it). Not very snappy on a poster, but "Vaccines are safe and effective" does sum it up.

It's not just teacozy's argument, it's the argument made by basically everyone with the right expertise to make it (and now someone will throw out a handful of MDs or scientists with other opinions - it's a big world and the internet is an amazing tool to connect minority groups and opinions).

 

Thank you for summing that up so nicely. 

 

I thought this quote from Robert Kennedy Jr. (who is an extremely vocal anti-vaccine critic) was both fitting and ironic.  About climate change he says: 

 

“Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. There are 2 percent who disagree with that. I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent.”

 

I like what Steven Novella says about that quote: 

 

"That is a basic statement of acceptance of the scientific consensus. But Robert Kennedy is not always a fan of the scientific consensus – for example he rejects the scientific consensus on vaccines, choosing to believe that the consensus is a deliberate fraud (exactly what global warming dissidents say about the climate change consensus). This makes Robert Kennedy a hypocrite – he accepts the scientific consensus and cites its authority when it suits his politics, and then blithely rejects it  when it is inconvenient to his politics." 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#60 of 72 Old 03-23-2014, 10:56 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

Then there is Gandhi ~

 

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

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

Mirzam is online now  
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