Is it fair to criticize individuals in support-only forums? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:04 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

It seems to me like this issue could be solved by eliminating support-only forums, which skirt the edge of ethics anyway when discussing medical care, and let people feel free to post where ever they want and respond to anything they want.

And that would be a very sad day.  I don't come here looking to debate, I come here because I've already made my decisions - not to vax, future home birth, breastfeeding, etc.  I don't care to hear garbage spewed about how my point of view is different and therefor wrong - it sucks sometimes to be an independent thinker and not follow the masses.  But that won't change my opinion.  Eliminating support forums doesn't hurt you if you do follow the crowd.  For those of us in that lesser .3% category, there is far less chance that we will find this kind of camaraderie IRL and therefore support forums are a place we "go" because people get us there.  That's a form of extreme censorship to cherry pick like that and to say which opinions are acceptable and frankly its the same old bullshit that happens on a daily basis for us NVers  so let's cut to the chase here - if you belong to a particular support forum, what business do you have lurking (and why would you even want to) and reading threads that don't go along with your own beliefs?  People have every right to discuss their own medical issues as they see fit - I sure as hell can't share with my friends and family the things I can share her because they aren't the least bit supportive and some would be downright rude.

sassyfirechick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:06 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,967
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

And that would be a very sad day.  

Agreed.  There are so many members who post on INV who rarely or never post on the debate board. 

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#123 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:21 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 sassyfirechick View Post
 

And that would be a very sad day.  I don't come here looking to debate, I come here because I've already made my decisions - not to vax, future home birth, breastfeeding, etc.  I don't care to hear garbage spewed about how my point of view is different and therefor wrong - it sucks sometimes to be an independent thinker and not follow the masses.  But that won't change my opinion.  Eliminating support forums doesn't hurt you if you do follow the crowd.  For those of us in that lesser .3% category, there is far less chance that we will find this kind of camaraderie IRL and therefore support forums are a place we "go" because people get us there.  That's a form of extreme censorship to cherry pick like that and to say which opinions are acceptable and frankly its the same old bullshit that happens on a daily basis for us NVers  so let's cut to the chase here - if you belong to a particular support forum, what business do you have lurking (and why would you even want to) and reading threads that don't go along with your own beliefs?  People have every right to discuss their own medical issues as they see fit - I sure as hell can't share with my friends and family the things I can share her because they aren't the least bit supportive and some would be downright rude.

 

I never said a thing about censorship or cherry-picking, not sure where that came from.  It's the opposite of censorship to let people post what they want where they want.  And, I don't see where that doesn't allow people to discuss medical issues as they see fit.  You don't have to respond to every post, even in a thread you're posting in.  If you are as confident as you say you are with your decisions, then differing opinions shouldn't matter anyway. 

moderatemom is offline  
#124 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:22 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 kathymuggle View Post
 

Agreed.  There are so many members who post on INV who rarely or never post on the debate board. 

 

And I don't post on MDC much at all because I'm very much opposed to support-only forums, even those that agree with my philosophies. 

moderatemom is offline  
#125 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:25 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate support forums. They clearly serve a need. I'm very happy there is now a VOS board.

People should restrict themselves to critiquing the issues and asking for support not personally attacking people (MDC members or not). But that's in the UA already afia.
erigeron and teacozy like 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). Vaccines save lives.
prosciencemum is online now  
#126 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 12:33 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 2,133
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1009 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate support forums. They clearly serve a need. I'm very happy there is now a VOS board.

People should restrict themselves to critiquing the issues and asking for support not personally attacking people (MDC members or not). But that's in the UA already afia.

 

I agree,  I like having a VOS forum. 

 

Saying "the logic that some NVers use baffles me" was flagged by a NVer, called out by a NVer, and was even addressed by a moderator.  

 

One side is clearly being more heavily moderated than the other.  

 

I don't think personally attacking people or groups (PVers/NVers) should be allowed on support forums. 


“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” ~ Steven Novella
teacozy is offline  
#127 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 01:17 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 2,133
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1009 Post(s)

Cynthia explained it on the VOS thusly :

 

"There is a difference in specifying a group of people when you make a statement to take issue with what they believe and stating a specific opinion you disagree with, without attributing it to an individual or general group

 

"I think NVers are naive to think polio was a relatively mild disease..."

"I think the idea that polio was a relatively mild disease..."

 

 Do you see the difference? One sets up a discussion to criticize and generalize about a group of people. The other is a discussion of beliefs regarding polio. If you truly want a support forum for your needs as vaccinating parents it should be to discuss the vaccinations and diseases and not groups of people with whom you disagree." 

 

So I do think we need a clarification about whether the rules have changed since then or not. 

chickabiddy and rainbownurse like this.

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” ~ Steven Novella
teacozy is offline  
#128 of 144 Old 04-08-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,343
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post
 

I'm going to hold a few posts on this thread for moderation so that mods and admins can have a look.  In the mean time, please have a look over the UA again. Members need to be able to discuss vaccine choice without resorting to name calling. To give a general example of terms that are considered name calling, terms like "free loader" and "sheeple" most certainly are.  Members need to figure out a way to express themselves without using terms of this nature. And, perhaps more importantly, members will need to find a way to discuss these topics while remaining respectful of all our member's choices regarding vaccination. 

 

Here is our UA: 

Quote:
We embrace all parents, regardless of their vaccination choice. Our Vaccinations forums discuss issues and concerns so that parents can make an informed decision. We are not, however, interested in hosting discussions advocating for mandatory vaccination.

 

We have intelligent, passionate, and wise voices posting frequently to the Vaccinations forum. We certainly want to keep the forum atmosphere a place where they can do so with their passion intact. However, that passion must also carry a measure of compassion and respect, regardless of who is posting and what they are saying. While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others. Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental, and belittling. 

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#129 of 144 Old 04-09-2014, 09:28 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,678
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModerateMom View Post
 

 

I never said a thing about censorship or cherry-picking, not sure where that came from.  It's the opposite of censorship to let people post what they want where they want.  And, I don't see where that doesn't allow people to discuss medical issues as they see fit.  You don't have to respond to every post, even in a thread you're posting in.  If you are as confident as you say you are with your decisions, then differing opinions shouldn't matter anyway. 


My whole response wasn't geared at you - more that your first sentence about eliminating the support forums triggered me.  I don't even know where you fall on the "debate" because like you said, you don't post much. There are plenty of people here who spend way too much time worrying about others and my point is that I don't care what happens on the VOS forums, I don't go there, don't read them!  They could be bashing the NVers left and right and I'd be blissfully unaware because I come here for support, to bounce ideas off those in my support realm, and that's it.  Occasionally I pop over here to the debate side but mainly I stick to support.  Different opinions would be one thing, but things can get ugly and you know what?  I have enough of that in the real world so I don't need to come here and get it from strangers behind a computer keyboard.  I am confident in my decision - confident enough to come here and discuss it with people who've made similar decisions and expand my knowledge base, not to be told that my daughter's vaccine reactions are not really vaccine related or that she must not have been diagnosed buy a "real" doctor (as has been blatantly accused on here).  So while I apologize if you took my response as aimed at you, I do stand behind the support forums.

sassyfirechick is offline  
#130 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 11:46 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

And that would be a very sad day.  I don't come here looking to debate, I come here because I've already made my decisions - not to vax, future home birth, breastfeeding, etc.  I don't care to hear garbage spewed about how my point of view is different and therefor wrong - it sucks sometimes to be an independent thinker and not follow the masses.  But that won't change my opinion.  Eliminating support forums doesn't hurt you if you do follow the crowd.  For those of us in that lesser .3% category, there is far less chance that we will find this kind of camaraderie IRL and therefore support forums are a place we "go" because people get us there.  That's a form of extreme censorship to cherry pick like that and to say which opinions are acceptable and frankly its the same old bullshit that happens on a daily basis for us NVers  so let's cut to the chase here - if you belong to a particular support forum, what business do you have lurking (and why would you even want to) and reading threads that don't go along with your own beliefs?  People have every right to discuss their own medical issues as they see fit - I sure as hell can't share with my friends and family the things I can share her because they aren't the least bit supportive and some would be downright rude.

 

I understand where you are coming from and appreciate wanting a place to talk about how to deal with people pushing you to vax or looking for non-vax friendly doctors or just talking about life in general for non-vax families without having someone jump in to say "but you should be vaxing, why aren't you vaxing, here is why you should vax."   So from that standpoint, I get the reason for wanting a non-vax forum. 

 

But, that is not all that gets posted there, and I do have issues with the way it is used.  I believe that more information is good, and facts should always be checked and double checked, so I think it is wrong to present statistics or medical facts or whatever in support of non-vaxing in a place where no one is allowed to question them or point out where they are wrong.  Such as linking to a site which, in among a ton of other wrong information, claims the measles vaccine is clearly failing because they are now giving kids 3 doses each and adults are supposed to be getting regular boosters and yet still we have all these cases of measles!  And no one is allowed to come in and say, hey, the CDC schedule still only says 2 mmr for each kid, and no regular boosters for adults, has anyone heard of a bunch of kids actually getting three?  

 

Posting reports on diseases and vaccines and statistical information and such in a place where they are not allowed to be questioned just seems to create a bit of an echo chamber.  

pers is offline  
#131 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 12:35 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,343
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

 And no one is allowed to come in and say, hey, the CDC schedule still only says 2 mmr for each kid, and no regular boosters for adults, has anyone heard of a bunch of kids actually getting three?  

 

 


But that's not true.  Any non-vaxer is allowed to come in and correct errors, which we do.


Remember, non-vaxers are also not allowed to correct errors posted in the Vaccinating On Schedule Forum, either.

Taximom5 is offline  
#132 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 01:43 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,967
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

 

 

But, that is not all that gets posted there, and I do have issues with the way it is used.  I believe that more information is good, and facts should always be checked and double checked, so I think it is wrong to present statistics or medical facts or whatever in support of non-vaxing in a place where no one is allowed to question them or point out where they are wrong.  Such as linking to a site which, in among a ton of other wrong information, claims the measles vaccine is clearly failing because they are now giving kids 3 doses each and adults are supposed to be getting regular boosters and yet still we have all these cases of measles!  And no one is allowed to come in and say, hey, the CDC schedule still only says 2 mmr for each kid, and no regular boosters for adults, has anyone heard of a bunch of kids actually getting three?  

 

How about this:

 

I don't need you to teach me that information shared on the net can be questionable, and you (likewise) do not need me to teach you that information shared on the net can be questionable.  

 

We are all adults here, and having a comfortable posting atmosphere on support forums is more important than the other teams desire to come in and correct information as they see it and cause debate.  Fact checking is internet 101, and we should all assume most adults posting or lurking know that.  


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  
#133 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 03:44 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 


But that's not true.  Any non-vaxer is allowed to come in and correct errors, which we do.


Remember, non-vaxers are also not allowed to correct errors posted in the Vaccinating On Schedule Forum, either.

 

Occasionally they do, but a lot of stuff goes unquestioned, including the link to the blog that claimed a third MMR was added in 2011 as well as a regular adult booster, though to be fair that thread only got a few responses, so perhaps people just missed the paragraph?  I'm just annoyed over that one in particular because it was a fairly popular blogger who has a comment moderator to protect her from trolls and people who may question her (though stuff she feels she can easily refute apparently gets let through sometimes), so my polite question asking for the source of that since the CDC schedule is still only for 2 and no adult booster was deleted from moderation within an hour of me leaving it, and I know several other people tried to make the same correction, but she probably never saw any of them. 

 

Yes, non-vaxers also are not, and I don't like that either.  Again, I can appreciate why people might want a support forum to share vaccine experiences or ask how to talk about it with their kids and not have people jump in trying to convince them not to, but not for data.  I don't like echo chambers. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

How about this:

 

I don't need you to teach me that information shared on the net can be questionable, and you (likewise) do not need me to teach you that information shared on the net can be questionable.  

 

We are all adults here, and having a comfortable posting atmosphere on support forums is more important than the other teams desire to come in and correct information as they see it and cause debate.  Fact checking is internet 101, and we should all assume most adults posting or lurking know that.  

 

Of course everyone knows information on the net can be questionable.

 

But who has the time to look up every single thing?  I've got three kids and spend way to much time on internet as it is (as evidence I present Mount Laundry), so I certainly don't, though I do try and double check most stuff I actually post.  But most of us who can't devote ourselves to researching 24 hours a day can't look into everything, so the stuff we tend to look into tends to be the stuff that doesn't sound quite right, not the stuff that supports what we already feel or believe. 

 

For instance, a few days ago, there was a post that said measles medical costs per case in a recent outbreak were over 10,000.  Some people did question it, but no one brought evidence, and to me it sounded reasonable since while most cases wouldn't cost nearly that much the occasional really sick kid needing a lot of treatment in the hospital could drive the average way up, and also there was a link to an abstract that appread legit and mentioned that number, so I accepted it. 

 

Then earlier today, I came across that number again in a different context,  so I went back to the post and actually looked at the full text and realized that no, that was not the actual medical treatment costs, I had believed wrong information because it seemed plausible to me. 

 

That was in vaccine debate, so anyone could make the correction, though in this case it wasn't done right away.  But what if it had been on a pro-vax thread and an anti-vaxer had been the first to click through to the full text and notice that was tracking/quarantine cost, not medical costs?  Why should't they go ahead and post the correct info?  

 

Most people know it, but still, we are all busy, and sometimes the Internet seems like a giant game of telephone.  A while back there were some articles about how they were looking into how antibodies in breastmilk from women with high antibody levels (living in areas of poor saniation meaning much more frequent exposure to rotavirus and so higher antibodies than typical in mothers in developed nations), with the that the antibodies might neuatralize the vaccine when the two mix directly, so avoiding breastfeeding for a short period directly around the vaccine could increase efficiency in developing nations.  

 

Then the next thing you know, there is a big uproar and the story keeps getting exaggerated, until the next thing you know the story getting passed around and outraging people is that the CDC is saying mothers shouldn't breastfeed until after the first round of vaccines. 

 

I still see that particular story coming up from time to time in more or less extreme versions.  Recently here it was that medical establishment was suggesting that the antibodies in breastmilk were a threat to vaccines in general.   I can see why people who think the medical establishment is not supportive of or is even against breastfeeding would accept that since maternal antobodies can be a problem for some vaccines (why the MMR and chickenpox are given after a year), and breastmilk has antibodies... but breatmilk antibodies work a little differently than maternal antibodies, and most studies show that breastfed babies respond better to vaccines than formula fed babies, perhaps because of the stronger immune system?  

 

Anyway, so I can see why people would just accept that, and it would take some time people may not have to track down the original story.  But I know where it came from and that it never had anything to do with the CDC or the US or injected vaccines and that they were only talking about a very short time to avoid as much as possible the vaccine mixing with breastmilk in the stomach, so it really bothers me when no one else posts any of that and the only responses are how horrible it is that they are suggesting women feed formula so the vaccines will work.

 

So we all know that information can be questionable, so let it be questioned by those who will and see how the information stands up.  

pers is offline  
#134 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 04:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

We are all adults here, and having a comfortable posting atmosphere on support forums is more important than the other teams desire to come in and correct information as they see it and cause debate.  Fact checking is internet 101, and we should all assume most adults posting or lurking know that.  

 

One of the reasons you (and others) wanted a support forum instead of a "tribe" or group is so that lurkers could read information.  I disagree that comfort is more important than accuracy.  I don't know what to do about it, since allowing corrections would lead to debate, and that's not okay in support forums.  Maybe if a person sees misinformation she could start a new thread in discussions or debates to correct it and simply post a link in the support forum?


Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a thirteen-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#135 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 04:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,343
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)

Pers, I agree with you, but that's not how the show is run here.

A while back, I tried to post a non-confrontational correction, with supportive evidence, of a comment on a thread posted in the Sel/Del forum.  The comment wasn't one that could be looked at from 2 perspectives--it was just an out-and-out error.  I thought I would be ok posting there, as my children and I have had more vaccines than some of the people posting on the VOS forum, and because I was still weighing options for MMR for my daughter. 

 

My post was deleted and I was threatened with being banned if I were to post there again--because I have also posted that we have medical exemptions from further vaccines.

 

We do have the option of posting corrected information on our respective forums.

applejuice and pers like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#136 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 04:12 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,741
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

 

 

One of the reasons you (and others) wanted a support forum instead of a "tribe" or group is so that lurkers could read information.  I disagree that comfort is more important than accuracy.  I don't know what to do about it, since allowing corrections would lead to debate, and that's not okay in support forums.  Maybe if a person sees misinformation she could start a new thread in discussions or debates to correct it and simply post a link in the support forum?

debate section is closed - no new threads

applejuice likes this.

ANTI-GMO too! & Proud of it!  
 pro-transparency advocate
&
  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."       
serenbat is offline  
#137 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 04:26 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Pers, I agree with you, but that's not how the show is run here.

A while back, I tried to post a non-confrontational correction, with supportive evidence, of a comment on a thread posted in the Sel/Del forum.  The comment wasn't one that could be looked at from 2 perspectives--it was just an out-and-out error.  I thought I would be ok posting there, as my children and I have had more vaccines than some of the people posting on the VOS forum, and because I was still weighing options for MMR for my daughter. 

 

My post was deleted and I was threatened with being banned if I were to post there again--because I have also posted that we have medical exemptions from further vaccines.

 

We do have the option of posting corrected information on our respective forums.

 

 

Yeah, I know it's not, just speaking my piece and all that.  And that is one reason I don't post in the vaccine support only threads much - if I make a mistake, and you notice it, I appreciate you posting to tell me.  If you disagree with me on something more complex than an easy to point to mixtake, I still generally appreciate hearing it, because even if I still believe I'm right, it can make me look at things a bit differently, whether that is causing doubts or a different perspective or just resulting in strengthening my beliefs once I look into it more.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

debate section is closed - no new threads

 

Whoa.  So it is.  

ss834 and rainbownurse like this.
pers is offline  
#138 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 04:52 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,385
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 515 Post(s)

I've never been to the VOS forum; I have absolutely no idea what goes on there and I don't care.  I'm pretty sure it's much of the same that goes on everywhere people who are pro vaccine gather.  No matter what is said there, it doesn't change my experience.  

 

Isn't shutting down the support boards really just about controlling the message?  

 

BTW,

A third dose has been tried

Impact of a third dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine on a mumps outbreak.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23129075

applejuice likes this.

Maurice Hillman speaking on the live virus measles vaccine approved in 1963: "It provides high level and lasting immunity and is a paradigm for solving major medical problems without really understanding them."
samaxtics is online now  
#139 of 144 Old 04-11-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,343
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post

I've never been to the VOS forum; I have absolutely no idea what goes on there and I don't care.  I'm pretty sure it's much of the same that goes on everywhere people who are pro vaccine gather.  
No matter what is said there, it doesn't
 change my experience.  


Isn't shutting down the support boards really just about controlling the message?  

BTW,
A third dose has been tried

Impact of a third dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine on a mumps outbreak.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23129075

Interesting. Adverse events were determined by having the students fill out surveys after 2 weeks, and after checking physicians records for reported adverse events.

2 weeks only.
applejuice and Chicharronita like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#140 of 144 Old 04-14-2014, 12:55 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

I've never been to the VOS forum; I have absolutely no idea what goes on there and I don't care.  I'm pretty sure it's much of the same that goes on everywhere people who are pro vaccine gather.  No matter what is said there, it doesn't change my experience.  

 

Isn't shutting down the support boards really just about controlling the message?  

 

BTW,

A third dose has been tried

Impact of a third dose of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine on a mumps outbreak.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23129075

 

Yes, a third dose has been given in certain situations. I think it a third MMR may also be given to women who are found to not have rubella immunity on pre-conception bloodwork or after pregnancy for those who find out during pregnancy?  I'm not sure on that, but I don't think there is a rubella only vax for them, is there?

 

But it's still not true that a third shot to the childhood schedule and a regular booster for adults were added to the US schedule in 2011!  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Interesting. Adverse events were determined by having the students fill out surveys after 2 weeks, and after checking physicians records for reported adverse events.

2 weeks only.

 

Full text is here:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/30/peds.2012-0177.full.pdf

 

I am reading it as the follow up was at 2 months, not 2 weeks. 

pers is offline  
#141 of 144 Old 05-04-2014, 12:25 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,967
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Is it fair to mock people in support only forums?
 
 
To be honest, I do not have much issue with the onion and persephone piece being on VOS.  I would prefer it if the support forums were not so heavily modded.
 
However, if MDC is going to tell those on INV to knock off the name calling, as has happened here:
 
 
Then they need to do so on VOS as well.  
 
I understand mods are human and may have missed this.  I am not mad at mods - but would like a ruling of sorts on if linking to articles that only mock is ok and how this is better than name calling.  
 
Linking to articles whose only goal is to mock NVers is no better than doing it yourself (but it is the definition of passive-aggressive and back-door nonsense)

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  
#142 of 144 Old 05-05-2014, 11:13 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 568 Post(s)

We all have a choice to click or not click on articles linked to outside websites. The same has been said about support-only forums, but the information typed into the forum still reflects back on MDC. An outside link doesn't.

 

Where is the mocking taking place within the forum, as it was in the examples you gave? Should MDC control and/or ban all outside links? After all, those links could link to something that mocks someone, and/or the comments could be offensive.

ss834 is offline  
#143 of 144 Old 05-05-2014, 12:13 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,967
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

We all have a choice to click or not click on articles linked to outside websites. The same has been said about support-only forums, but the information typed into the forum still reflects back on MDC. An outside link doesn't.

 

 

Where is the mocking taking place within the forum, as it was in the examples you gave? Should MDC control and/or ban all outside links? After all, those links could link to something that mocks someone, and/or the comments could be offensive.

MDC has said it wants to improve the tone of discourse on the vaccine forums, and not have them be such a hostile places for those seeking information.

 

Links to articles that only mock one side are not going to create the sort of inclusive or informative site MDC wants to have.

 

I was very careful to say "articles that only mock" in my above post.  Numerous times a link will mock or have a nasty tone, but it will also have useful points.  I do not love skeptic sites (ha!  There is an understatement) but if one is saying something useful while mocking, it might be permissible.  

 

The onion and persephone piece were only meant to mock.  They are straight up poking fun at non-vaxxers and that hardly seems respectful.  

ss834 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  
#144 of 144 Old 05-07-2014, 09:43 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,736
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
Is it fair to mock people in support only forums?
 
 
To be honest, I do not have much issue with the onion and persephone piece being on VOS.  I would prefer it if the support forums were not so heavily modded.
 
However, if MDC is going to tell those on INV to knock off the name calling, as has happened here:
 
 
Then they need to do so on VOS as well.  
 
I understand mods are human and may have missed this.  I am not mad at mods - but would like a ruling of sorts on if linking to articles that only mock is ok and how this is better than name calling.  
 
Linking to articles whose only goal is to mock NVers is no better than doing it yourself (but it is the definition of passive-aggressive and back-door nonsense)

 

That "something to lighten the mood" thread is not the sort of thing a support forum should host. Since it is an older thread that is now being posted to again, I have locked it. But I'm not going to go back to threads placed prior to my Posting Guidelines for the Forums post and remove or close all discussions that violate those new guidelines. I hope you all have the sense to not post in a way to continue existing threads that discuss things in a way the new guidelines ask you to refrain from. 


cynthia mosher is online now  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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