Largent's Book: Has Anyone Read This? - Mothering Forums

 8Likes
  • 2 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By Deborah
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
Largent's Book: Has Anyone Read This?

This book looks intriguing. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/647217/pdf#b18

Has anyone read it? It appears analytical and not preachy.

I found this part of the excerpt interesting. Maybe validating would be a better word because I already knew this.

Quote:
Popular media coverage of the controversy often gives an oversimplified impression of a rapid, widespread drop in vaccine coverage. Nationally, coverage rates for four major, longstanding immunizations (MMR, DTP/ DTaP, polio, and HepB) have remained steady since 2000, at around 90% or more of preschool children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2015). Coverage is lower for immunizations that have been added to the recommendation list more recently, such as rotavirus and HepA, but even here the national trends are towards increased coverage over time.
And this.

Quote:
Compared to vaccine compliant parents, vaccine hesitant parents tend to be better educated, have higher socio-economic status, and be more knowledgeable about vaccines.
This goes to show that Bad Mommy laws, as I've stated ad nauseum, are about punishment, not edu-muh-cation.
Deborah and samaxtics 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 05:21 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
This book looks intriguing. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/647217/pdf#b18

Has anyone read it? It appears analytical and not preachy.

I found this part of the excerpt interesting. Maybe validating would be a better word because I already knew this.



And this.



This goes to show that Bad Mommy laws, as I've stated ad nauseum, are about punishment, not edu-muh-cation.
I bet the books end up coming down totally in favor of vaccine compliance though.

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  
#3 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
I don't think academics can publish anything about vaccines without paying at least lip service to a pro-compliance slant.

But Largent's pretty candid about some matters. For example:

Quote:
“Health and Human Services wanted to do something, but the legislative option wasn’t there,” Largent said. Instead, Michigan decided to use a strategy he calls “inconvenience.”
See? At least he calls a spade a spade. The health department bullshits us by calling it "education."
Deborah likes 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  
 
#4 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 06:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
Also, in this piece, he concedes:

Quote:
"There’s a lot of smoke but not a lot of fire, because reality is that things are better than they have been," says Professor Largent, noting that rates both for vaccination compliance and waivers are at an all-time high. Things like parental-education requirements are "a monstrously large unfunded mandate," Largent says, that gives very little return.
Quote:
We’re grossly overstating the risk of a small percentage of people choosing to not fully vaccinate their kid," says Largent. "It's easier to go after hippies and libertarians and not focus on the fact that the best way to solve this problem is to create a collaborative relationship between physicians and patients.... We’re discussing it as pro-vaccinator versus anti-vaccinator, when 40 percent of the American public is in the middle.
Deborah likes 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  
#5 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 06:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
He is going off message.

The goal is to force vaccines. Why else would there be all those proposed laws? Why else would SB277 be held up as a national model of vaccine legislation?

And adults are also targeted, see Health People 2020.

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 12 Old 04-19-2017, 06:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
He is going off message.

The goal is to force vaccines. Why else would there be all those proposed laws? Why else would SB277 be held up as a national model of vaccine legislation?

And adults are also targeted, see Health People 2020.
I'm not sure I understand? Is he covertly espousing a forced-vax position?

Given that I just found this, I suppose that he does sort of talk out of both sides of his mouth. http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/c...-msu/79537862/
Deborah likes 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  
#7 of 12 Old 04-19-2017, 06:50 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I'm not sure I understand? Is he covertly espousing a forced-vax position?

Given that I just found this, I suppose that he does sort of talk out of both sides of his mouth. http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/c...-msu/79537862/
Simply that individuals can't really have an effect on the vaccine program. It isn't REALLY open to discussion or argument or variation.

The only thing that has an effect at the moment is local state lobbying of legislators, which is definitely an uphill battle.

I'm seeing a worldwide trend to stonewall any discussion about vaccines that wants to discuss concerns, actual vaccination rates or nuances about vaccines.

Get your damn vaccine is the message.

So even though this dude is trying to find middle ground and be sort of moderate, he simply won't get any traction. I guess I should modify that and say "be a tiny bit flexible and what could be described as middle-of-the road" it isn't acceptable.

For one thing, the middle of the road has been removed.
Turquesa 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  
#8 of 12 Old 04-20-2017, 08:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
It's hard to say. My rights aren't negotiable, and I'm suspicious of how he equivocates on the issue of Bad Mommy Laws -- i.e. saying in one article that they "give very little return" and in another that they are "the right compromise."

If he holds both beliefs, then he thinks that we should compromise with a pointless law educating the most educated, as if to throw a bone to the forced vaxxers. But we already saw in VT, CA, OR, and WA that Bad Mommy Laws are just the slippery-slope to the ultimate goal of exemption bans. (In OR and CA, at least, it was the same Senator who introduced both the Bad Mommy and forced-vaxxer laws).

On the other hand, some facts need to come from the mouth of an insider in order for them to sound credible to the mainstream. We've been screaming from the roof-tops that nationwide mumps outbreaks are caused by vaccine failure and not ebil anti-baksers. Maybe people will finally believe us now that Offit has said the same #@#$%%^ thing.

Similarly, many of us have been shouting at a brick wall that there is no "growing number of unvaccinated children," and that vaccination rates are, in fact, at their highest and most table. Will this fact finally be taken seriously now that Largent is sharing it?
Deborah likes 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.

Last edited by Turquesa; 04-20-2017 at 08:45 AM. Reason: type-o
Turquesa is offline  
#9 of 12 Old 04-20-2017, 04:44 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
It's hard to say. My rights aren't negotiable, and I'm suspicious of how he equivocates on the issue of Bad Mommy Laws -- i.e. saying in one article that they "give very little return" and in another that they are "the right compromise."

If he holds both beliefs, then he thinks that we should compromise with a pointless law educating the most educated, as if to throw a bone to the forced vaxxers. But we already saw in VT, CA, OR, and WA that Bad Mommy Laws are just the slippery-slope to the ultimate goal of exemption bans. (In OR and CA, at least, it was the same Senator who introduced both the Bad Mommy and forced-vaxxer laws).

On the other hand, some facts need to come from the mouth of an insider in order for them to sound credible to the mainstream. We've been screaming from the roof-tops that nationwide mumps outbreaks are caused by vaccine failure and not ebil anti-baksers. Maybe people will finally believe us now that Offit has said the same #@#$%%^ thing.

Similarly, many of us have been shouting at a brick wall that there is no "growing number of unvaccinated children," and that vaccination rates are, in fact, at their highest and most table. Will this fact finally be taken seriously now that Largent is sharing it?
I doubt that the discussion will become more reasonable. I see two factors. One is that there is a sector which is desperately fighting for the worst possible laws around vaccines. I'm not going to try and figure out who is behind this sector, but it exists, and if you want bad laws, facts just get in the way. The second is that admitting anything (see the Offit article) is always done in a way that supports vaccination or more vaccination. He doesn't admit that Merck is being sued, for example. He doesn't talk about the MMR and the link to arthritis. He makes utterly unscientific claims to polish up the vaccine. Here is a quote with a bit of highlighting:
Quote:
The problem with mumps, however, is that it doesn’t just make you “lumpy.” Mumps virus can also travel to the lining of the brain and spinal cord and cause meningitis, or to the brain itself to cause encephalitis. Indeed, in its heyday, mumps was the most common cause of acquired deafness in the United States. The virus can also infect the testes (orchitis) or ovaries (oophoritis), causing sterility, or the pancreas, causing pancreatitis. For these reasons, mumps was a feared disease. One interesting observation about the current outbreak is that these serious consequences of mumps infections haven’t been observed. And they should have been. As many as 30 percent of males infected with mumps will develop orchitis. And as much as 15 percent of boys and girls infected with mumps will develop meningitis. So while previous vaccination with two doses of mumps-containing vaccine doesn’t protect everyone from the disease, it does appear to protect against the severe consequences of disease.
Correlation and causation, anyone?

By the way, is there less deafness in the US today than there was in the 1950s?

Turns out to be a hard statistic to find. But here are current numbers on deafness which includes stats for children http://www.ncra.org/Government/conte...temNumber=9450

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 12 Old 04-20-2017, 05:50 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Just ran into a perfect example of the rule that you never criticize a vaccine policy or admit a vaccine failure until you have an alternative vaccine strategy to push. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gro...cough-newborns

Quote:
Some of the evidence that questions the cocooning strategy comes from a study of Australian babies. In 2009, cases of whooping cough began to increase in Western Australia. In 2011 and 2012, health officials there offered free vaccines to new parents, grandparents and others who had close contact with newborns. It was a good idea, but it didn’t seem to work, researchers reported in 2015 in Vaccine. Whooping cough rates were similar between babies whose parents had been vaccinated in the 28 days after their children were born and babies whose parents were not vaccinated.
but the article points over and over to the importance of vaccines during PREGNANCY.

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  
#11 of 12 Old 04-21-2017, 10:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,670
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1752 Post(s)
@Deborah It's totally true.

The usual example is the case of an article bringing up a vaccine's short-coming and then telling you that you should get it or get more of it. "FLU SHOT CAUSES GROWTH OF THIRD NIPPLE. BUT YOU SHOULD STILL GET VACCINATED, SAY EXPERTS."

Sometimes, it's still useful in discussions to say, "Yeesh! Even OFFIT will tell you that mumps outbreaks aren't cause by people refusing the vaccine."

“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  
#12 of 12 Old 04-21-2017, 12:07 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,568
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
@Deborah It's totally true.

The usual example is the case of an article bringing up a vaccine's short-coming and then telling you that you should get it or get more of it. "FLU SHOT CAUSES GROWTH OF THIRD NIPPLE. BUT YOU SHOULD STILL GET VACCINATED, SAY EXPERTS."

Sometimes, it's still useful in discussions to say, "Yeesh! Even OFFIT will tell you that mumps outbreaks aren't cause by people refusing the vaccine."
I like that. Use their own fanatic against them...

As a post-menopausal celibate, I don't have much use for two nipples, much less three. Another reason to refrain from flu shots!
mama24-7 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: 15,535

23 members and 15,512 guests
beckyleeh , debigebi , Deborah , girlspn , greenemami , hillymum , IsaFrench , Kate_H21 , lisak1234 , MartinaTempleton , MarylandMommy , moominmamma , Motherof3already , NaturallyKait , pokeyac , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , scaramouche131 , sciencemum , worthy , Xerxella
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.