Credentialism and Vaccinations - Mothering Forums

 128Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 45 Old 02-01-2017, 07:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Credentialism and Vaccinations

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../credentialism

Quote:
credentialism

noun

[mass noun] Belief in or reliance on academic or other formal qualifications as the best measure of a person's intelligence or ability to do a particular job:
‘credentialism is to a large degree responsible for people assuming that they need a degree’
So, Hemingway was a bad writer. He didn't have a Master's in Creative Writing or whatever it is called.

And we are all bad parents unless we have a degree in child development and a back-up degree in nutrition.

It is impossible for anyone to evaluate the risks of aluminum salts in vaccines unless they have a degree in chemistry and another in toxicology.

And here is the approach recommended by one journalist who frequently writes about vaccines. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahael.../#4ba53e935a42

Quote:
A new study suggests a glimmer of hope in changing the minds of those who are uneasy about vaccines: scaring them – albeit with facts – works. At least with some of them.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 45 Old 02-01-2017, 08:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Some of the threads where vaccine supporters argue that only experts should __________

Trump picks new Secretary of HHS...

automatic rejection?

RFK jr to meet Donald Trump today to discuss vaccines

Out of time, but it sure is a popular argument.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Deborah; 02-06-2017 at 05:37 PM.
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 45 Old 02-01-2017, 08:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
It just occurred to me that I ought to explain what I'm up to with some of these new threads.

At the moment the vaccine critics are heavily dominant on these forums. I wanted to take advantage of that reality to explore many topics in more depth than is possible in the heat of a lively discussion. Back and forth can be entertaining and sometimes it can be revealing, but having time to take up an interesting point and explore it in more detail doesn't always work in a thread where people are having a heated discussion.

This is also a chance to take some of the points that have been brought forward as conclusively supporting vaccines, remove them from the pro-vaccine frame, and reconsider them in a different context.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
 
#4 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 06:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
As a general rule, people are responsible for everything they have domaine over. People can choose to seek expert opinion that they may or may not use, and they may hand responsibility over to experts, but they can also take it back. This works on everything from selling your house to fixing a car to educating your children. This works on private or public institutions. Regarding public institutions, I am compelled to pay for schools through my taxes, but I am not compelled to use them.

So, no, I am not compelled to do as expert say.

Which leads one to the next question: simply because you do not have to listen to experts, does not mean you shouldn't. Should expert opinion be weighed in vaccine decisions?

The answer is maybe.

If my child had a severe vaccine reaction, and it was crystal clear to me it was the vaccine, I would not weigh expert opinion on whether said child should receive further vaccines. Experts would not have to live with the very real consequences should something go wrong.

If I opposed an ingredient in vaccines on moral or religious grounds, I would not listen to experts (except maybe church experts - but listening to and following their decrees are different things - my conscious is my own). Examples include diploid cels, porcine DNA, other animal DNA.

Should the rest of us listen to experts and weigh their recommendations?

I would say the answer is a soft yes if you lack the desire and resources to acquire said expertise on your own.

I would add that experts should abide by a certain code if they want what they say to carry any weight.

1. They should display competence. I have had a bit of trouble recently with my car mechanic and am considering switching - because they are not competent.

2. They should be trustworthy. Much of the case for vaccinations comes from the CDC and pharmaceutical companies. I do not think either entity is trustworthy, for various reasons, and am happy to make this case if needed.

Thus even if ideally you should weigh what experts say on a topic, this expert opinion can be tainted or deemed untrustworthy due to inherent problems in either them or their industry.

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-02-2017 at 06:23 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#5 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
As a general rule, people are responsible for everything they have domaine over. People can choose to seek expert opinion that they may or may not use, and they may hand responsibility over to experts, but they can also take it back. This works on everything from selling your house to fixing a car to educating your children. This works on private or public institutions. Regarding public institutions, I am compelled to pay for schools through my taxes, but I am not compelled to use them.

So, no, I am not compelled to do as expert say.

Which leads one to the next question: simply because you do not have to listen to experts, does not mean you shouldn't. Should expert opinion be weighed in vaccine decisions?

The answer is maybe.

If my child had a severe vaccine reaction, and it was crystal clear to me it was the vaccine, I would not weigh expert opinion on whether said child should receive further vaccines. Experts would not have to live with the very real consequences should something go wrong.

If I opposed an ingredient in vaccines on moral or religious grounds, I would not listen to experts (except maybe church experts - but listening to and following their decrees are different things - my conscious is my own). Examples include diploid cels, porcine DNA, other animal DNA.

Should the rest of us listen to experts and weigh their recommendations?

I would say the answer is a soft yes if you lack the desire and resources to acquire said expertise on your own.

I would add that experts should abide by a certain code if they want what they say to carry any weight.

1. They should display competence. I have had a bit of trouble recently with my car mechanic and am considering switching - because they are not competent.

2. They should be trustworthy. Much of the case for vaccinations comes from the CDC and pharmaceutical companies. I do not think either entity is trustworthy, for various reasons, and am happy to make this case if needed.

Thus even if ideally you should weigh what experts say on a topic, this expert opinion can be tainted or deemed untrustworthy due to inherent problems in either them or their industry.
I appreciate the thought and care that you put into the topic.

However, even if we think the experts maybe untrustworthy, some will argue that we simply cannot have or develop the knowledge to be able to make good decisions on our own on a topic as complex as vaccines. Which would sort of leave us all in limbo. Unable to trust but unable to do our own effective research.

So, next question, can we find out what, as parents and as vaccine targets ourselves, what we need to know to make good decisions?
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#6 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 01:52 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post

However, even if we think the experts maybe untrustworthy, some will argue that we simply cannot have or develop the knowledge to be able to make good decisions on our own on a topic as complex as vaccines. Which would sort of leave us all in limbo. Unable to trust but unable to do our own effective research.

So, next question, can we find out what, as parents and as vaccine targets ourselves, what we need to know to make good decisions?
The argument I have heard on this forum over the years is that even if the experts are less than trustworthy, they are the best we have got, and thus we should defer to them.

I disagree. One does not defer to a person or group one does not trust, unless the there is no other options.

There are plenty of options in the vaccine game. The first is to do nothing (assuming you live in a place that values informed choice). This is always an option in medicine: do nothing. Roll the dice and take your chances. The second option is to become informed. Do your best, and yes, you may miss things or fail to comprehend things. So be it. How is that any worse than doing what an expert you don't trust, says?

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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now  
#7 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 04:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
The argument I have heard on this forum over the years is that even if the experts are less than trustworthy, they are the best we have got, and thus we should defer to them.

I disagree. One does not defer to a person or group one does not trust, unless the there is no other options.

There are plenty of options in the vaccine game. The first is to do nothing (assuming you live in a place that values informed choice). This is always an option in medicine: do nothing. Roll the dice and take your chances. The second option is to become informed. Do your best, and yes, you may miss things or fail to comprehend things. So be it. How is that any worse than doing what an expert you don't trust, says?
Makes sense.

Which moves us on to the next argument, which is that our distrust is unreasonable. I'll see if I can find an example, so we aren't putting up a strawman.

I think this is a good example and I'm not quoting a member, but quoting a member quoting a source.
Quote:
Rationalwiki (since some members have been linking to it recently) makes the same point: "The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives.

For example, the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't prove classical or Newtonian mechanics wrong, but it did show that classical mechanics did not hold true in every case." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before
The most striking thing about the quote is the discussion of the use of the word "wrong". How often have we heard supposed experts telling us that even discussing a connection between vaccines and ill health of any sort is a bad thing to do?

But I digress.

This moves the discussion to the theoretical, rather than practical level. So what is the "theory" of vaccination and how is it currently supported by the science?

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/con...-vaccines-work

Quote:
Vaccines work by mimicking disease agents and stimulating the immune system to build up defenses against them.
Not a bad theory.

How do you mimic a disease agent?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068582/
available full-text for those who want to really dig into the topic.

Very good article and the beginning provides a great overview of the many pieces of our immune system that can deal with possibly harmful organisms before the antibody system fires up. This makes it clear that, for example, eating a healthy diet DOES provide immune support. Only the vaccine enthusiasts whose interest in immunity is totally hooked on antibodies are unable to see the many ways in which diet and living conditions support our ability to protect ourselves.

It is great to have time to poke my nose into some of the underlying science.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#8 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 05:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
returning to the arguments about experts and trust, David Healy has brought forward some interesting points. The actual article is by John Horgan https://davidhealy.org/everyone-has-...tific-experts/
John Horgan quoting Mooney
Quote:
“Collins carefully delineates between different types of claims to knowledge. And in the process, he rescues the idea that there’s something very special about being a member of an expert, scientific community, which cannot be duplicated by people like vaccine critic Jenny McCarthy… Read all the online stuff you want, Collins argues—or even read the professional scientific literature from the perspective of an outsider or amateur. You’ll absorb a lot of information, but you’ll still never have what he terms ‘interactional expertise,’ which is the sort of expertise developed by getting to know a community of scientists intimately, and getting a feeling for what they think. ‘If you get your information only from the journals, you can’t tell whether a paper is being taken seriously by the scientific community or not,’ says Collins. ‘You cannot get a good picture of what is going on in science from the literature,’ he continues. And of course, biased and ideological Internet commentaries on that literature are more dangerous still. That’s why we can’t listen to climate change skeptics or creationists. It’s why vaccine deniers don’t have a leg to stand on.”
I think that is a really good example of the argument for trusting the experts. And yet, looking at it critically, someone not in that "scientific community" will immediately see that there is not only science in play, but also socialization, the desire to fit in, peer-pressure, fear of rocking the boat and so on. All of which can prevent the scientists inside of the "community" from pointing out the odd stuff that doesn't fit.

This is depended on very heavily, in my opinion, by the vaccine supporters. For example, the main argument against the Shoenfeld ASIA material is that it isn't "accepted" by other scientists. How, exactly, is science going to move forward, if new ideas are automatically dismissed?
applejuice, Devaskyla and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#9 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 05:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
This is a review of a book about political experts, but I think there are probably some bits that apply to vaccine experts, too. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...odys-an-expert

Since you can't sue your pediatrician when your baby gets terribly ill due to a vaccine, your hopes of suing Dr. Offit who the doctor heard speaking at a conference on how to persuade parents that vaccines are really, really safe are absolutely zilch.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#10 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 06:16 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
I will address a few more point when I have more time....

"And in the process, he rescues the idea that there’s something very special about being a member of an expert, scientific community, which cannot be duplicated by people like vaccine critic Jenny McCarthy… Read all the online stuff you want, Collins argues—or even read the professional scientific literature from the perspective of an outsider or amateur. You’ll absorb a lot of information, but you’ll still never have what he terms ‘interactional expertise,’ which is the sort of expertise developed by getting to know a community of scientists intimately, and getting a feeling for what they think."


I do not think people who only talk to like minded people necessarily have the best judgement. "Echo chamber" is a charge levelled at INV a fair bit, and less so at VOS (although it is just as appropriate). The fact that a group is a profession changes little. In both my husbands and my jobs, I can think of instances where the "experts" at the top of the pyramid have been out of touch with reality/ the populations they serve.

I also rebel slightly at the framing of vaccine choice as a science issue. Vaccines are a parenting issue, and different parents weigh different things differently. I weigh stats far more than I weigh something like T-cells, but to each their own.

The people we speak to (doctors) often know less about vaccines than knowledgeable patients. We do not have access to scientists (who usually work for pharmaceutical companies - and we all know industry studies tend to favour the industry). We cannot speak to scientists directly, and studies are often behind paywalls. I often find studies are far less firm than the interpreter of studies would have us think: they often call for more studies, note the limitations, etc, etc.

So...when they say we should "listen to the experts" - who exactly do they mean?

Doctors?

The CDC (which has a revolving door with Big Pharma issue, for starters)?

Big Pharma?

Scientists? Which ones? Where? Most are not accessible.

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-02-2017 at 08:06 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#11 of 45 Old 02-02-2017, 06:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
quoting kathymuggle
Quote:
So...when they say we should "listen to the experts" - who exactly do they mean?

Doctors?

The CDC (which has a revolving door with Big Pharma issue, for starters)

Big Pharma?

Scientists? Which ones? Where? Most are not accessible.
Around here they usually mean one or more of the following (sort of like a multiple choice test):
1) Skeptical Rapture
2) Orac
3) Offit
4) your local pediatrician
5) anyone who tells you to trust vaccines

but I'm getting silly. I should get off the computer and get ready for bed.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#12 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 08:22 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Makes sense.

Which moves us on to the next argument, which is that our distrust is unreasonable.
We have heard this one a lot. The irony is that many pro-vaxxers are highly critical and skeptical of pharmaceutical companies...except where it comes to vaccines. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

On the whole, I think the reasons for not trusting pharmaceutical companies and the CDC are rock solid. While occasionally people say that vaccine critical distrust is unreasonable, no one has ever been able to substantiate that point. Distrust in pharmaceutical companies and the CDC, based on their histories, is very reasonable.

Concerning this quote:

"Rationalwiki (since some members have been linking to it recently) makes the same point: "The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives"

This put science on a pedestal, doesn't it? We weren't wrong...we just tweaked it slightly, lol.

I do not doubt this is sometimes true and mild tweaking is all that occurs - but other times is it is not. Our understanding of ulcers, for example, is fundamentally different that it was 60 yrs ago. Our understanding of ulcers was wrong then. Owning when you are wrong (and not setting yourself up as infallible) builds trust - not the other way around. Pro-vaxxers like to point out that it is fine to change policy based on new information, that science is a process and ever evolving. I would agree with this. This logically means, though, that you cannot claim that we all must do what the experts want because there is "scientific consensus."

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-03-2017 at 08:37 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#13 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 09:02 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,079
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1413 Post(s)
How do we define what constitutes an expert?

Is your paediatrician an expert? Even if they are just relaying information they've been told by people they believe/trust and not because they’ve actually studied vaccines? Let’s say they’ve actually read the full studies. Do they have access to the raw data themselves or do they just trust the people doing the studies?

What does it actually mean when they say there is “scientific consensus”? How many of those scientists are actually in that field and actually read the studies let alone have access to the raw data?

Here’s an example of what is being portrayed as scientific consensus:

We always read that the scientific consensus proclaims climate change to be real and man made. Fair enough.
But then I read somewhere that around 40% of meteorologists do not believe climate change is real. I found this rather suspect and so went in search of more info; after all how could that be possible that scientists who actually understand weather could not believe that what we are putting into our atmosphere might affect the climate?


One of the first things I came across was a Forbes article by the president of the AMS titled: 96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening

which is an article addressing alleged distortion of a previous survey by people who used it to confirm their own bias ( which was opposite to what the authors say they found). And so a new survey was done which posed the questions in such a manner so that answers were to be more clear and concise.

The survey is here.
They surveyed “about 4,000” members. A search brought up that AMS has 13,000 members.
They conclude that:
Quote:
“Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either "extremely" or "very sure" it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening.”
96% of 4000 = 3840
96% of 13000 = 12480

It’s not “nearly all AMS members” it’s 29.5% of the membership that bothered to do the survey.
And yes, some will make the argument that it’s a representation. But I think those who are more agreeable to whatever the survey is about are more likely to respond. I think the doubters, knowing how unpopular their opinion would be and wanting to avoid problems are more likely to decline participating in such a survey. Not unlike what I think we would find surveying paediatricians about vaccinating their own children. JMO.

But what is also interesting is that:

Quote:
Seven out of ten AMS members who think their local climate has changed say the impacts have been primarily harmful (36%) or approximately equally mixed between harmful and beneficial (36%). One out of five (21%) AMS members say they don’t know.
So the same number of meteorologists think that their local climate change had both benefits and harms as those who think there were only harms.

But again it isn’t seven out of ten members. It’s seven out 10 members who did the survey. And what is also interesting, out of those members that did respond rated their expertise when asked:

Quote:
Do you consider yourself an expert in climate science?
37% Yes
57% No
5% Don’t know
So 57% of 4000 people who are members of the AMS don’t even consider themselves experts in climate science. Did the majority of “experts” decline to do the survey? And if so, what conclusions can be drawn from that?

Now I didn't bring up climate change to start a debate about it. This is just an example of how we need to go beyond what is presented in the media when they throw up words such as "scientific consensus" and "experts".
samaxtics is online now  
#14 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 09:16 AM
 
Xerxella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,271
Mentioned: 551 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
I think it's a very valid viewpoint that anyone who doesn't agree with the "consensus" is unlikely to answer the survey. A lot of people are uncertain of the anonymity of surveys. For instance, at work they do a survey on what do you think of your bosses. If you are unhappy with your bosses and fear retribution, you are extremely unlikely to fill out the survey with anything other than glowing remarks about your boss. You'll either not complete the survey or you'll complete the survey and lie.


So, a pediatrician who is not vaccinating their children on schedule is extremely unlikely to fill out a survey saying so. There are absolutely no benefits for them to do so. So, what are the benefits for a scientist to come out and go against the consensus? Really none. Maybe, if they care deeply, they can keep putting out mild questioning pieces. But, overall, they'll fall into line and keep their job.

Married to one of the last good guys left Jim
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mom to AJ 4/07
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and Genevieve 5/09
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And THEN twins: Matt 11/14
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and his guardian angel Billy
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Ten days in our lives, a lifetime in our hearts


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Xerxella is offline  
#15 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 09:39 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post

What does it actually mean when they say there is “scientific consensus”? How many of those scientists are actually in that field and actually read the studies let alone have access to the raw data?

".
I saw this tidbit yesterday and stored it away for a time I could use it (thanks for the segue):

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0024357

"...A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement."
applejuice, Deborah and Xerxella 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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now  
#16 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Fascinating points. I don't have time to respond with more questions today or tomorrow, but I'll come back and play devil's advocate once again.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#17 of 45 Old 02-03-2017, 03:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Found this in an old thread
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/bo...mers.html?_r=0

Quote:
According to Thomas C. Leonard, who teaches at Princeton, the driving force behind this and other such laws came from progressives in the halls of academia — people who combined “extravagant faith in science and the state with an outsized confidence in their own expertise.” “Illiberal Reformers” is the perfect title for this slim but vital account of the perils of intellectual arrogance in dealing with explosive social issues. Put simply, Leonard says, elite progressives gave respectable cover to the worst prejudices of the era — not to rabble-rouse, but because they believed them to be true. Science didn’t lie.
From a review of two books about the American Eugenics movement.

Extravagant faith in science? Science didn't lie?

I think we've got a problem. Sounds to me like the same people running the eugenics program are running our current vaccination program. At least in terms of mindset.
applejuice and Devaskyla like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#18 of 45 Old 02-05-2017, 08:41 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sophia's Correction
Posts: 9,059
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 643 Post(s)
Yes, OT climate change/global warming, but I thought the observations that meteorologist Piers Corbyn makes are eerily similar to the vaccine "science" discussions.

applejuice and Tweety_Bird like this.

I am Rhome

Last edited by Mirzam; 02-05-2017 at 08:47 AM.
Mirzam is offline  
#19 of 45 Old 02-05-2017, 12:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
We have heard this one a lot. The irony is that many pro-vaxxers are highly critical and skeptical of pharmaceutical companies...except where it comes to vaccines. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on.

On the whole, I think the reasons for not trusting pharmaceutical companies and the CDC are rock solid. While occasionally people say that vaccine critical distrust is unreasonable, no one has ever been able to substantiate that point. Distrust in pharmaceutical companies and the CDC, based on their histories, is very reasonable.

Concerning this quote:

"Rationalwiki (since some members have been linking to it recently) makes the same point: "The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives"

This put science on a pedestal, doesn't it? We weren't wrong...we just tweaked it slightly, lol.

I do not doubt this is sometimes true and mild tweaking is all that occurs - but other times is it is not. Our understanding of ulcers, for example, is fundamentally different that it was 60 yrs ago. Our understanding of ulcers was wrong then. Owning when you are wrong (and not setting yourself up as infallible) builds trust - not the other way around. Pro-vaxxers like to point out that it is fine to change policy based on new information, that science is a process and ever evolving. I would agree with this. This logically means, though, that you cannot claim that we all must do what the experts want because there is "scientific consensus."
That last bit is absolutely perfectly stated. If science changes, based on new information, then it behooves all of us to keep our minds cracked open.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 45 Old 02-05-2017, 12:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
I dug back through an old thread and found the counter-argument to the "there sure is a lot of corruption out there" point.

Paraphrasing.

The good guys (scientists) eventually figured out that some bad guys (scientists) were manipulating the data and called them on it. Science works. Therefore we can trust consensus.

Another common argument is that children and teens get sick all the time, and sometimes they get sick after vaccines. Therefore blaming the vaccine for the sickness is silly. And we can trust consensus and experts.

When there is a study that indicates a possible problem with a vaccine or vaccine ingredient there are several ways of getting critics back in line.

  1. Criticize the study or authors. Too small, irrelevant, anti-vaccine author, evil anti-vaccine funder, etc.
  2. Say: "look, people are studying the problems! Now will you trust the consensus?"
  3. Ignore the link.
  4. Explain why that particular article isn't really relevant--nice if a bit of mockery can be added to point out how stupid the vaccine critic was for thinking that it was relevant.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#21 of 45 Old 02-06-2017, 07:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
This is an interesting piece of the credentialism game. Your baby's pediatrician is the one you should be able to turn to if vaccines cause an injury, right? After all, pediatricians = experts.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c....html?spref=tw
applejuice and samaxtics like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#22 of 45 Old 02-07-2017, 07:31 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
This is an interesting piece of the credentialism game. Your baby's pediatrician is the one you should be able to turn to if vaccines cause an injury, right? After all, pediatricians = experts.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c....html?spref=tw
To quote:

"Two weeks ago, in my letter to the Johns Hopkins Journal, Narratives in Bioethics, I made public the fact that I had taken Chandler's pediatrician before the state medical board for failing to evaluate him for a vaccine injury. It was a journey that started two years ago, and I am just now wrapping up.

Here is both the short version of the story, and the very long version for the true die hards.

This is the question I before the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine:

What is the duty of a physician to his patient when a parent reports a suspected vaccine injury?

Their answer...

The doctor has no duty to the patient. Well that is their implied answer. What they really did was just make up an excuse to close the complaint and not answer the question at all. "


You can heavily weigh what experts say or not - I can see both sides to the argument. But don't, for one minute, expect the "experts" will take any meaningful action or responsibility if anything goes wrong.

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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now  
#23 of 45 Old 02-07-2017, 07:52 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,079
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1413 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
This is an interesting piece of the credentialism game. Your baby's pediatrician is the one you should be able to turn to if vaccines cause an injury, right? After all, pediatricians = experts.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c....html?spref=tw
From your link:

Quote:
Why would any sane parent, knowing that they will be ignored, neglected, insulted and treated as an opponent if their child is hurt, participate in the vaccine program?
Why indeed!
samaxtics is online now  
#24 of 45 Old 02-07-2017, 08:28 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,656
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1741 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
This is an interesting piece of the credentialism game. Your baby's pediatrician is the one you should be able to turn to if vaccines cause an injury, right? After all, pediatricians = experts.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.c....html?spref=tw

Experts? Show me one CME workshop entitled, "How to Recognize Vaccine Injury in Your Patients." Show me one chapter in a med school immunology book on this topic. If vaccine injury exists, and nobody denies that it does, why isn't there more training in this area?

You could object: "But, but it's sooooooo raaaaaaaaare!" Invalid excuse. Short Bowel Syndrome, for example, is also extremely rare, and yet pediatricians have somehow figure out a way to learn about that.

The difference is that while SBS babies rightfully need referred to pediatric gastroenterologists, 100% of pediatricians should be thoroughly educated about vaccine injury.

For general reference, we've discussed the topic of expertise at least a couple of times in these enlightening threads.

Are Doctors "Experts" on Vaccines?
And a mini-poll: are doctors experts on vaccines?
applejuice, Devaskyla and mama24-7 like this.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#25 of 45 Old 02-07-2017, 12:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Experts? Show me one CME workshop entitled, "How to Recognize Vaccine Injury in Your Patients." Show me one chapter in a med school immunology book on this topic. If vaccine injury exists, and nobody denies that it does, why isn't there more training in this area?

You could object: "But, but it's sooooooo raaaaaaaaare!" Invalid excuse. Short Bowel Syndrome, for example, is also extremely rare, and yet pediatricians have somehow figure out a way to learn about that.

The difference is that while SBS babies rightfully need referred to pediatric gastroenterologists, 100% of pediatricians should be thoroughly educated about vaccine injury.

For general reference, we've discussed the topic of expertise at least a couple of times in these enlightening threads.

Are Doctors "Experts" on Vaccines?
And a mini-poll: are doctors experts on vaccines?
Actually, the situation is much worse than just the absence of courses on how to recognize vaccine injuries and support families going through vaccine injury situations. There are a lot of continuing education courses for healthcare professionals related to what they like to call "immunizations". For example, here is what the CDC offers: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/ed/index.html

There are more listed on that page. I'm pretty sure that throughout these courses the following is said:
1) vaccine injury is really rare
2) the only real vaccine injuries are allergic reactions
3) the important thing is to boost vaccine rates by whatever means will work
applejuice and Turquesa like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#26 of 45 Old 02-07-2017, 12:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
And another list of classes for health professionals http://www.immunize.org/resources/contedu.asp

this one is specifically for pharmacists. http://www.freece.com/FreeCE/LivePro...9-e95e0a0871ab

Significant effort has gone into convincing health professionals that vaccine injuries are very rare and anything besides allergic reactions is questionable.
applejuice and Devaskyla like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#27 of 45 Old 02-08-2017, 08:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
The other big part of this is the organizational fallacy.

If there are lots and lots of powerful organizations that support something, then it must be good and safe and needed.

See eugenics.

Or the medical associations that supported (some probably still support) the long-term use of opioids for patients with chronic pain.

The various patient associations that take piles of money from pharmaceutical companies.

The AAP which takes money from pharma, formula manufacturers and junk food purveyors. And claims to care about your children.

It is credentialism on a group level. And just as flabby as it is on an individual level.
applejuice and Devaskyla like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#28 of 45 Old 02-09-2017, 05:51 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)








I though these were fun.
applejuice, Deborah and mama24-7 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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 45 Old 02-09-2017, 06:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,114
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2320 Post(s)
I will say right off the bat that I do not think framing vaccines as primarily a science issue is correct. I really do not have to understand the ins and outs of toxicology to know that the risk of getting diphtheria in Canada is incredibly, incredibly low.

That being said:

Can a layperson know as much about vaccine toxicology as a toxicologist with a focus on vaccine? Probably not. Oh, I know lay people can be as smart as scientists, and that online resources can be great in helping build ones knowledge base...but a layperson typically cannot access labs and other scientists to bounce ideas off of in the way a toxicologist can.

So, even if (generally speaking) a scientist can know more than the average layperson on a very narrow field of inquiry - does it matter?

Parents want to know if the vaccine is safer or if going without the vaccine is safer (both short and long term). That is it. The fact that a scientist could have more knowledge than I in a narrow focus means incredibly little.

I think the appeal to credentials can sound good in theory, but when you look at it closely, it's a flop. First off, the people parents can typically access in terms of discussing vaccines are usually not experts. They are the middlemen - the communicators of standards of care. If they can access someone beyond their primary doctor, it is typically a public health institution. Public health institutions are concerned with public health - not individual health. I will also add that I find their messages to be borderline untrustworthy - they sacrifice nuance and yes, scientific finding, for simplicity. Guidelines on drinking and pregnancy/nursing are great examples of this. Their is message is often "don't" (simple) but science shows very light drinking in the mid trimester is typically fine. If you are one of the few who can get a hold of a scientist, you will likely find that a) the science is more complex than is typically communicated, and that scientists will be the first to admit it; and b) that an individual's scope of work is typically quite narrow, which is often not helpful unless your one holdout on vaccination (ha!) matches their very specific field of inquiry.

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-09-2017 at 07:02 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#30 of 45 Old 02-09-2017, 07:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,460
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2773 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I will say right off the bat that I do not think framing vaccines as primarily a science issue is correct. I really do not have to understand the ins and outs of toxicology to know that the risk of getting diphtheria in Canada is incredibly, incredibly low.

That being said:

Can a layperson know as much about vaccine toxicology as a toxicologist with a focus on vaccine? Probably not. Oh, I know lay people can be as smart as scientists, and that online resources can be great in helping build ones knowledge base...but a layperson typically cannot access labs and other scientists to bounce ideas off of in the way a toxicologist can.

So, even if (generally speaking) a scientist can know more than the average layperson on a very narrow field of inquiry - does it matter?

Parents want to know if the vaccine is safer or if going without the vaccine is safer (both short and long term). That is it. The fact that a scientist could have more knowledge than I in a narrow focus means incredibly little.

I think the appeal to credentials can sound good in theory, but when you look at it closely, it's a flop. First off, the people parents can typically access in terms of discussing vaccines are usually not experts. They are the middlemen - the communicators of standards of care. If they can access someone beyond their primary doctor, it is typically a public health institution. Public health institutions are concerned with public health - not individual health. I will also add that I find their messages to be borderline untrustworthy - they sacrifice nuance and yes, scientific finding, for simplicity. Guidelines on drinking and pregnancy/nursing are great examples of this. Their is message is often "don't" (simple) but science shows very light drinking in the mid trimester is typically fine. If you are one of the few who can get a hold of a scientist, you will likely find that a) the science is more complex than is typically communicated, and that scientist will be the first to admit it; and b) that an individual scope of work is typically quite narrow, which is often not helpful unless your one holdout on vaccination (ha!) matches their very specific field of inquiry.
Well, yes, it is a political/policy issue. An individual choice issue. A public health issue. An individual health issue. So I agree, not just science. I think that the noise about science is an attempt to intimidate people into not even looking into the issue.

And I also agree that the people we encounter in medical settings aren't experts on vaccine science.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah 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

Online Users: 10,123

21 members and 10,102 guests
crmapp035 , Deborah , emmy526 , hillymum , Janeen0225 , katelove , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , lhargrave89 , Linarsconsuelo , lisak1234 , momwithmany , mumto1 , nuezraquel10 , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , samaxtics , seap3 , youngwife
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.