The Daily Show: Liberal "Idiocy" on Vaccines - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 203Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 83 Old 06-06-2014, 09:49 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)
Quote:
There are always going to be outliers.
Like Galileo and Semmelweis. Being in the minority does not make them wrong.

And Margaret Meade who said,

Quote:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
applejuice is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 83 Old 06-06-2014, 10:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Science isn't a belief system. Like my signature says, it's true whether or not you believe in it.

You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate the scientific method. I don't know about everyone else, but we learned the importance of the scientific method in elementary school.
Science is not a belief system. But scientism and positivism certainly are. You are not asking me to accept scientific findings. You are asking me to place my faith in certain individual, fallible scientists based on a logical fallacy ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html ) and a made-up number, 99.9%.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#63 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 12:54 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method. I actually don't recommend anyone take a single scientists word for anything (myself included!). Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.

Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of.

History simplifies science into a story of great discoveries by great men (and more rarely women). Scientists today don't recognise that as the process we work in. We all contribute small steps in a gradual accumulation of knowledge.

That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.
prosciencemum is offline  
#64 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 07:40 AM
 
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
No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method. I actually don't recommend anyone take a single scientists word for anything (myself included!). Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.
This sounds more like anti-scientist than anti-science…..and even then, I suspect it is more of an "anti how scientists are under significant influence by industry" than anything else. Moreover, anti-scientist is still too generalised….if the complaint is "too much industry influence to render the results trustworthy" (which is a common complaint with vaccination) does that apply evenly to all sceintists in all disciplines? Some disciplines or areas of study may be far less prone to influence that others.

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...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-07-2014 at 09:36 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#65 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 07:47 AM
 
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

Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of…..


That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.
Oh, I am not so sure. I think if we went back in history to virtually any time period we would see a lot they got wrong - even though it was the dominant thought by the best trained minds at the time.

We cannot know what we get right and what we get wrong…time will tell, perhaps, but none of us can see the future. To think that everyone in history got a lot wrong, but we get everything right is fairly egotistical. Maybe our future great-great-great grandchildren will scoff at us.

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  
#66 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 09:49 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Here's some other examples of consensus amoung scientists:

-up until 1628 they believed the liver moved blood through the body

-that the earth was the centre of the universe

-that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity

-no need to wash your hands to deliver babies after cutting up cadavers

-that drugs don't cross the placental barrier or that certain drugs are safe to take during pregnancy

This is regarding birth defects after using antidepressants whilst pregnant:

Quote:
Gibson’s lawyers allege GSK knew or should have known about the risks and that it failed to apprise Gibson or her physicians.Gibson had asked her doctor if she should go off the drug during pregnancy; she was told it was “100 per cent safe.”
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/...pill-for-that/
samaxtics is online now  
#67 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 03:12 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....
prosciencemum is offline  
#68 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 03:56 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....

The point is not so much how we view them right now, but how they were viewed then. And "in the day" those people believed that their beliefs were supported by science and consensus. And it turns out, they were wrong.

Not everything is known about the immune system and how every thing affects it and how it affects the infant's development. Here in this link, they are just discovering that:

Quote:
“Surprisingly, we found that newborns’ cells actually responded more vigorously to infection compared to adults,” said Rudd, assistant professor of immunology. “We also found that newborns’ cells go through their lifespans more quickly and die off sooner, before they can give rise to memory T cells and remember what they’ve learned. So the immune system is forced to start the learning process over again when infected by the same pathogen later in life.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ound-be-strong

I'm not sure why I would be expected to feel confident about consensus at this point.
samaxtics is online now  
#69 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 04:13 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote on consensus:

Quote:
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” Michael Crichton
samaxtics is online now  
#70 of 83 Old 06-07-2014, 05:32 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 prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.
It doesn't matter to us that 400 years ago, people believed some ridiculous things. It's great that advice has changed since then. But it does matter to us that within the span of our young children's lives, something as common as antidepressants during pregnancy went from being considered 100% safe, to being known to sometimes cause heart defects. Scientific knowledge progresses, and eventually scientific "consensus" changes, but mothers can't afford to move at the slow pace of "scientific consensus." We don't get "do-overs."
ma2two is offline  
#71 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 03:30 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Sure I agree it's frustrating. But I don't see how we can do better than the best advice that's out there.

And there have been people claiming vaccines are unnatural and dangerous since they were first introduced. Anti vaccination views are very far from new.

When serious issues have been found, or even just when the balance of risk benefit become unacceptable (eg polio OPV) recommendations change. This is incredibly reassuring to me.
prosciencemum is offline  
#72 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 05:42 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
We can do better by - not - making the lives of those who choose - not - to vax difficult.

By - not - limiting their children's choices of schooling, calling them names, disparaging them, mocking them, insulting them, denigrating their concerns, dismissing their questions, reducing their concerns to ignorance, swiftboating anyone who dares to speakup, discriminating them or their children in their social lives. Etc, etc.

In other words, by respecting the rights to - not - vax, regardless of the reasons.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#73 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 05:47 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
There's another way to make things better ...

Hold the vax manufacturers liable for the safety of their products - just like any other consumer products, medical or otherwise.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#74 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 09:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method.
Exactly. You want me to comply with the vaccination schedule based on faith and not on science. You and Tea have made it quite clear that I'm in no position to vaccinate fully based on any understanding of science. I'm not an expert, after all.

This is unfortunate. I trusted every doctor who routinely and compulsively prescribed antibiotics for every last cold and ear infection. Look at the Pandora's box that they have now opened.

Of course, doctors are not scientists.

[/QUOTE] Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of.

History simplifies science into a story of great discoveries by great men (and more rarely women). Scientists today don't recognise that as the process we work in. We all contribute small steps in a gradual accumulation of knowledge.

That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.[/QUOTE]

Can you provide supporting evidence for any of these generalizations? I evaluate science based on its own merit, not on how many people uphold a scientific precept.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#75 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 09:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
I think it was a mixed bag at best.

If there were any viewers who bothered to look up Sarah's blog, or "herd immunity," and actually read some of the "other side," then that would be a win. Judging by some of the comments on Sarah's blog from even provaxxers who nonetheless admitted grudging respect for her position, there were actually people who did bother to look things up.

But let's face facts, that's not the most likely scenario.

I've seen a number of pro-vax people on FaceBook post this, apparently secure in their knowledge that this gave a shining example of "anti-vax idiocy." They certainly didn't bother to look up Offit's financial conflicts of interest, or challenges to the theory of herd immunity, not to mention the fact that Offit's points were completely untrue.

The more typical viewers saw only Paul Offit labeled as "expert immunologist," and Sarah labeled as "anti-science idiot" who swore that no matter how many scientists told her she was wrong, she wouldn't change her mind, i. And that makes it a loss. Unless you really knew what was going on, he came off as the expert scientist, and she came off as an actress paid to look like an idiot. All it did for the vast unthinking hordes was to reinforce the propaganda.
I'm unfortunately inclined to agree. I understand wanting to seize the opportunity for an appearance on national T.V., but I'm not sure that this was a wise way to go about it. A full-on serious interview with Stewart would have been better. Even then, I'm not sure that Sarah Pope would have been the best candidate to reach out to the mainstream. I mean no offense when I say that statements like "herd immunity is a myth" will sound fanatical to Joe and Jane America. I'm not saying that Pope has zero credibility. But somebody more middle-of-the-road like Jennifer Margulis would be a better choice.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#76 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 11:52 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.
Scientific truths are - not - established by voting.

Pro rights (vaxes).

Last edited by MamaMunchkin; 06-08-2014 at 12:16 PM.
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#77 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 12:26 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 prosciencemum View Post
Sure I agree it's frustrating. But I don't see how we can do better than the best advice that's out there.
so let's just give up!
And there have been people claiming vaccines are unnatural and dangerous since they were first introduced. Anti vaccination views are very far from new.

When serious issues have been found, or even just when the balance of risk benefit become unacceptable (eg polio OPV) recommendations change. This is incredibly reassuring to me.

ah, it is so frustrating to see people who claim vaccines ARE natural!

claiming they are "natural" and pushing the propaganda that they are is A REAL PROBLEM-IMO roll

 

 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  
#78 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 12:28 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 MamaMunchkin View Post
There's another way to make things better ...

Hold the vax manufacturers liable for the safety of their products - just like any other consumer products, medical or otherwise.
they are just so NATURAL, why confuse them with meds and accountability!

remember supplements = BAD
vaccines ARE natural = all is GOOD!

 

 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  
#79 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 12:31 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 prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....
so glad you are SURE they won't reverse their stance on vaccines like other medical recommendations of the past---odd how "other things" can be but not when it comes to vaccines

 

 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  
#80 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 12:34 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 Turquesa View Post
Science is not a belief system. But scientism and positivism certainly are. You are not asking me to accept scientific findings. You are asking me to place my faith in certain individual, fallible scientists based on a logical fallacy ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html ) and a made-up number, 99.9%.
I see the 99.9% never got backed up with any of those "pesky" facts

I also see that there doesn't appear to be a 99.9% (or any for that matter) report that shows that many "scientist" say vaccines are natural, yet the PRO side pushes it all the time as a fact.

Facts only seem to matter a minuscule percentage of the time!

 

 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  
#81 of 83 Old 06-08-2014, 10:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Getting back to the show, was anyone else bothered by Offit's misinformation? That crap about "more and more parents" and "exemption levels are rising" is really grating on me, especially where vaccination rates are high, steady, and rarely falling below CDC goals.

New York State has some of the toughest vaccine laws and lowest exemption numbers. And yet measles, mumps, and pertussis keep rearing their heads there. Samantha Bee's implication that NYS was some hotbed for non-vaccination also bugged me.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#82 of 83 Old 06-09-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Getting back to the show, was anyone else bothered by Offit's misinformation? That crap about "more and more parents" and "exemption levels are rising" is really grating on me, especially where vaccination rates are high, steady, and rarely falling below CDC goals.

New York State has some of the toughest vaccine laws and lowest exemption numbers. And yet measles, mumps, and pertussis keep rearing their heads there. Samantha Bee's implication that NYS was some hotbed for non-vaccination also bugged me.
That blogger Sarah Pope agrees with Offit about "more parents...":

Quote:
With vaccination rates continuing to fall each and every year as more parents delay or forgo shots entirely for their children, authorities are blaming unvaccinated children for putting the population at large at risk or worse, for outbreaks themselves.
- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c....jRMRAMIL.dpuf
tadamsmar is offline  
#83 of 83 Old 06-09-2014, 11:30 AM
 
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 tadamsmar View Post
That blogger Sarah Pope agrees with Offit about "more parents...":

- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c....jRMRAMIL.dpuf
Well, then, both are wrong.

WHO stats:

http://apps.who.int/immunization_mon...overages?c=USA

Offitt, a vaccine "expert" getting it wrong is worse than a blogger getting it wrong. Offitt is meant to be looked on as an authority while she is not.

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  
Reply

User Tag List

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


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