"Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccine film!" - Mothering Forums

 78Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 03:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
"Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccine film!"

This is a statement that has been repeated frequently by the Vaxxed team and many of its supporters. They claim the movie is just anti the combined MMR, etc. In fact, in Polly's recent video about her banning from Australia, she says at the end that anyone who says it's an anti-vaccination film is a liar or hasn't seen the movie.

It is NOT just against the MMR. This video has compiled clips from the documentary to illstrate this point:


Further, the members of the Vaxxed team are certainly NOT only against the MMR. Some statements with video clip evidence (I am not going to post each individual clip here into the forum but they are at the link I will provide at the end).

Quote:
July 24 2017, in Australia, Tommey, states that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine; AVN public officer and founder, Meryl Dorey, nods in agreement.

July 24 2017, in Australia, Vaxxed star, Brian Hooker, states that children should receive no vaccines.

July 24 2017, in Australia, Hooker states that vaccines are poison

August 2 2017, in Australia, Tommey states that the best safe vaccine is no vaccine.

March 27 2016, Bigtree repeats the antivax lie that vaccines are injected into the bloodstream of babies

July 9 2016, Bigtree equates public immunisation campaigns as the same as Nazis coming for the Jews in 1930s Germany

July 9 2016, Bigtree screams about bodily sovereignty and tells his Vaxxed audience to stay out of vaccinating paediatricians’ offices

July 11 2016, Tommey states bluntly that there is no safe vaccine

October 15 2016, Bigtree claims that vaccines are not safe or effective, and repeats a series of lies about vaccine ingredients, among them that vaccines contain “antifreeze”
There is *much* more on this link for those interested.

Hopefully we can all put this nonsensical claim to rest now.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 05:08 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sophia's Correction
Posts: 9,061
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
More nonsense from you teacozy, VaxXed in not an anti-vaccine film it is describes fraud at the CDC.

The rest of the quotes from Polly Tommey, Del Bigtree or Brian Hooker, are quite reasonable, and I for one agree with them all. So another post of yours to fall flat.
weisser hase likes this.

I am Rhome
Mirzam is offline  
#3 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 06:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
What an enlightening response. Did you watch the clip?

Considering under the statistics tab for your username 2 out of your 5 most recent threads have 0 responses and one only has a single response, I'd say you aren't really in much of a position to criticize other people's threads.

As always, you are welcome to block me and not read any more of my threads.

Can we move past the petty digs now and discuss the actual topic?
Deborah likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
 
#4 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 06:22 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sophia's Correction
Posts: 9,061
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
VaxXed is a film about corruption and fraud at the CDC, the end.
weisser hase likes this.

I am Rhome
Mirzam is offline  
#5 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 06:28 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Can we move past the petty digs now and discuss the actual topic?
Well, I'd love to discuss people who react to the same vaccine more than once. A topic you have been dodging for a long time...
weisser hase 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 offline  
#6 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 06:35 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
This is a statement that has been repeated frequently by the Vaxxed team and many of its supporters. They claim the movie is just anti the combined MMR, etc. In fact, in Polly's recent video about her banning from Australia, she says at the end that anyone who says it's an anti-vaccination film is a liar or hasn't seen the movie.

It is NOT just against the MMR. This video has compiled clips from the documentary to illstrate this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rglhb8dSv1s

Further, the members of the Vaxxed team are certainly NOT only against the MMR. Some statements with video clip evidence (I am not going to post each individual clip here into the forum but they are at the link I will provide at the end).



There is *much* more on this link for those interested.

Hopefully we can all put this nonsensical claim to rest now.

So your position is that the film is anti-vax because people featured in the film express vaccine critical comments at film screenings or other public events independent of the film? wow

The film is an expose of the recorded admissions of a CDC scientist turned whistleblower and his claim that the CDC produced a fraudulent MMR study .

But you would know that had you seen the film.

As per usual, the provaxx want to direct attention away from the real issues - the whistleblower and the children injured by the MMR.

ETA. When I started my post there were no comments. Sorry for the repetition.
Deborah and weisser hase like this.
samaxtics is offline  
#7 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 07:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
Again, are people actually watching the video clip?

This movie is not *just* about the (nonexistent) alleged "fraud" at the CDC. It is also not only presenting positions against just the combined MMR vaccine like many assert. The documentary presents views in opposition of vaccinations that are not the combined MMR. That is the point. It is thus indeed an anti-vaccination film by definition. The team that directed and produced the film are likewise against vaccines.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 07:11 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Again, are people actually watching the video clip?

This movie is not *just* about the (nonexistent) alleged "fraud" at the CDC. It is also not only presenting positions against just the combined MMR vaccine like many assert. The documentary presents views in opposition of vaccinations that are not the combined MMR. That is the point. It is thus indeed an anti-vaccination film by definition. The team that directed and produced the film are likewise against vaccines.
The problem is...you have vigorously argued that people like Turquesa, who vaccinate their children, are anti-vaccine. For those of us who find it difficult to wrap our minds around that argument, criticizing vaccines, even multiple vaccines, doesn't equal "anti-vaccine" in the sense of fanatically against all vaccines and therefore people who are dangerous to public health.

We just see the dividing line in different places.
kathymuggle and weisser hase 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 offline  
#9 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 07:15 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Plus, of course, even the most fanatical and extreme positions shouldn't be censored.

I, for example, am not in favor of kicking the pro-vaccine members off this board! They have a right to be heard.
anisaer and weisser hase 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 offline  
#10 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 08:00 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
They have a right to be heard even when they try to limit options and choices for families who want to eat healthy food, avoid unnecessary medical interventions and generally live up the Mothering ideals.

Although sometimes it is a bit of a stretch.
anisaer and weisser hase 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 offline  
#11 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 08:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
I've said many times that I consider someone who is against the vast majority or all vaccines on the schedule to be anti-vaccine by definition.

Turquesa does not fit that description to my knowledge. She is a selective/delayer.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#12 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 08:29 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I've said many times that I consider someone who is against the vast majority or all vaccines on the schedule to be anti-vaccine by definition.

Turquesa does not fit that description to my knowledge. She is a selective/delayer.
Everyone, review the thread on who is anti-vax. Who is Anti-Vax?

Quote:
I consider people who are strongly opposed to all or the vast majority of vaccines to be anti-vaccine. I've looked up several official definitions of the word "anti" and I do not see anywhere where it stipulates a person has to want something completely banned and illegal to fall under the definition of being "anti" something.
Who is Anti-Vax?
this link goes directly to Teacozy's post, since it is a very long thread that wanders a fair bit.

Turquesa felt this description was too broad and included people who selected and/or delayed vaccines. @Turquesa , have I got that right?
weisser hase 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 offline  
#13 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 08:52 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Another bit from the anti-vax thread: Deborah wrote:
Quote:
I find it frustrating when the meaning of a term becomes so vague as to be good for anything or good for nothing, particularly when the term in question is used to abuse opponents.

The attack on the doctors in Washington State, calling them "anti-vaccine" for suggesting that only the measles vaccine be mandatory is the height of absurdity.
Who is Anti-Vax? again, the link goes directly to the relevant post.
weisser hase 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 offline  
#14 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 09:43 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
I find that the vax-compliance crowd tends to have a far-reaching, free-ranging definition of "anti-vaccination." The definition stretches all the way to pediatricians who daily and routinely vaccinate children in their practices.

My position is that to be anti-anything, you have to be plainly and simply opposed to it. To that end, I did watch Teacozy's clip and remain unconvinced that Vaxxed is an anti-vaccination film.

I won't cover every example, but I'll tackle one: Brandy Vaughan mentioning the inadequate testing is not an anti-vaccination statement. It is a criticism of the approval process. Whether or not one vaccinates is a separate issue. I share Vaughan's criticism of the approval process and still selectively vaccinate. A lot of people point out, "Hey, aren't you contradicting yourself?" Yes!

That leads me to something else that I've long argued: There are pockets of pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine people who cannot handle nuance or complexity. You can criticize vaccines, the corruption of vaccine manufacturers, and coercive vaccination policies simultaneously while you vaccinate your children because you'd rather not nurse them through measles. It's baffling, but it's possible.

That Who-Is-Anti-Vax thread is well worth a (re)read.
Deborah and weisser hase 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.

Last edited by Turquesa; 08-10-2017 at 09:54 PM.
Turquesa is offline  
#15 of 53 Old 08-10-2017, 10:25 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
First of all, I could list out tons and tons of dictionary definitions of anti. It means opposed or against something. If you are opposed or against the vast majority or all of the vaccines on the schedule, you are by definition anti-vaccine. I have not seen a single legitimate dictionary use the definitions that many non-vaxxers think should apply before being called anti-vaccine.

I understand people don't like the association of the term, but that is not the same thing as the term being wrong or incorrect.

Second, @Turquesa , is your position that the documentary ONLY takes issue with or has concerns about the combined MMR and not other vaccines? The first part of her quote in the clip is "We get into a very dangerous territory with vaccinations. If a drug company gets just one vaccine added to the schedule, it can make upwards of 30 billion dollars in one year." Is that concern only referencing the MMR in your opinion? If not, then you see the point that this film is not just critical about the combined MMR like people try to claim, but vaccines in general.

Her next quote is just incorrect. There are vaccines that are tested in double blind place trials. HPV vaccine, for example. That has been tested in thousands for years of follow up and in multiple countries. Here is a link covering some of those studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/). Yet, as Craig Egan pointed out in a recent video of his, non-vaxxers hate that vaccine THE MOST! So this criticism rings hollow. It wouldn't matter if they were all tested this way, non-vaxxers would still consider anecdotes to be superior evidence and think the vaccine was dangerous. Second, vaccines are tested in combination with the schedule, she is just wrong on that point as well.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 08-10-2017 at 10:30 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:03 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Her next quote is just incorrect. There are vaccines that are tested in double blind place trials. HPV vaccine, for example. That has been tested in thousands for years of follow up and in multiple countries. Here is a link covering some of those studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/). Yet, as Craig Egan pointed out in a recent video of his, non-vaxxers hate that vaccine THE MOST! So this criticism rings hollow. It wouldn't matter if they were all tested this way, non-vaxxers would still consider anecdotes to be superior evidence and think the vaccine was dangerous. Second, vaccines are tested in combination with the schedule, she is just wrong on that point as well.
I highly recommend people always click on the links supplied in the "vaccines are safe because they are tested" posts. I clicked on all the clinical trial links supplied at the link teacozy provided. For some clinical trials they just listed "Placebo" but these three listed placebos as:


Quote:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00689741
Biological: placebo
3 doses of IM injection of Al(OH)3 placebo
Quote:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/...0092534&rank=1
Biological: Matching Placebo
Matching Placebo to Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
Quote:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00122681
Approximately 18.000 study subjects will either receive the HPV vaccine or a control vaccine (hepatitis A vaccine) administered intramuscularly according to a 0-1-6 month schedule.
my bold

What does it matter if the trials are randomized and blinded if the placebo is not inert?
samaxtics is offline  
#17 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:11 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
First of all, I could list out tons and tons of dictionary definitions of anti. It means opposed or against something. If you are opposed or against the vast majority or all of the vaccines on the schedule, you are by definition anti-vaccine. I have not seen a single legitimate dictionary use the definitions that many non-vaxxers think should apply before being called anti-vaccine.
I am in absolute favour of you and yours being vaccinated teacozy.

Am I pro-vaccine?
Deborah, Turquesa and weisser hase like this.
samaxtics is offline  
#18 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 08:54 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
I think the reluctance to say one is "ant-vax" is because the term has been made into a slur. On some level, refusal to own up to what one really is or is close to because the term has been made into a slur is playing within the other sides frame, but on the other hand, the other side has been very effective at making anti vax a slur, so I can see why one would nod their heads to reality and reject the label.

I have seen 10 minutes of Vaxxed (disclosure). I have read a number of reviews, but don't pretend to be well versed in the film. That being said, I strongly suspect the film is closer to "anti-vax" than "pro-vax." Whether it is straight up anti-vax depends on your definition. The Vaxxed team does not see the film as anti-vax, and generally speaking it is respectful to allow a group to define itself.
Deborah and weisser hase 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 offline  
#19 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 10:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
Yes, the reaction many have to being called anti-vaccine only reinforces the idea that being opposed to vaccines is something that is bad and negative. Not really the message I'd be wanting to send if I was opposed to vaccines, but whatevs.

It doesn't change the fact that the term is not an incorrect one to use when describing someone who is against all/most vaccines. That is the definition of anti - something, period.

Back on topic, a case can absolutely be made that the film is anti-vaccines in general and not just anti-MMR. Polly going so far as to accuse anyone who says otherwise a liar is ridiculous. There is no question that the movie is critical of vaccines other than the MMR.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 08-11-2017 at 10:59 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 10:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
On an unrelated note, it was late last night and as I reread the quote from Brandy where she says one vaccine can make the companies 30 billion in one year I have to wonder where on earth her source is for that claim? Since recent estimates put the GLOBAL revenue for all vaccines at 23.9 billion, I wonder where on earth she is getting the idea that one vaccine makes 7 billion more than that? I'll point out that the 23.9 billion number is revenue -not profit.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 12:25 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
First of all, I could list out tons and tons of dictionary definitions of anti.
I am happy to do it for you, as dictionary.com is kind enough to compile a lot of differently sourced definitions in one place. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti?s=t

Yes. It means against or opposed. @samaxtics is OK with you vaccinating your kids, so she can't be "anti-vaccine." This is pretty easy and really not worth addressing ad nauseum.


Quote:
Second, @Turquesa , is your position that the documentary ONLY takes issue with or has concerns about the combined MMR and not other vaccines?
No. The film addresses numerous vaccines from a vaccine-critical standpoint. Vaccine-critical is not the same thing as anti-vaccine.

Whether or not the film is addressing the MMR vaccine or other vaccines is an entirely separate question from whether or not the film is anti-vaccine. It seems that this thread is equivocating between those two issues.

I am happy to address the veracity of Vaughan's statements in another context or thread. But this thread asks whether her statements are anti-vaccine. They are not.

I'm honestly not sure what your link is trying to prove. But it has certainly not proven that this is an "anti-vaccine" film.
Deborah and weisser hase 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.

Last edited by Turquesa; 08-11-2017 at 12:28 PM.
Turquesa is offline  
#22 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 01:21 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1416 Post(s)
Sadly but predictably, there is more dialogue about what to call parents of vaccine injured children from pro-vaxxers than there is any curiosity about or empathy for these children. And I'm tired of the obvious re-direction.

So @teacozy , how about those vaccine injured children and the plight of their families shown in the film? Polly's son's and countless other families' vaccine injuries were validated by their physicians. How have you and your fellow pro-vaxxers supported those who took one for the team?
samaxtics is offline  
#23 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 03:02 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Some of proof Tea offers in trying to assert that the film is anti-vax just don't hold up. For example, the quotes on safety do not equate to anti-vax.

The supreme court of the USA has said vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" and i am pretty sure they are pro-vax.

Saying something is unsafe is not in and of itself being anti-it. Cars are not safe. I drove in one today.
Deborah, Turquesa and weisser hase 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 offline  
#24 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:08 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
@teacozy ,
You have described what you see as the behavior of "anti-vaxers" many times.

Here are some examples:
Quote:
There likely isn't one. From my experience, most pro-vaxxers don't attribute things to vaccines (whether positive OR negative) based on anecdotes not backed up by science. That is the difference.
hypocrisy/double standards....

This is saying that people who criticize vaccines ignore the science and just depend on anecdotes. Definitely a negative characterization.

Quote:
They are supposed to prevent, meaning because scientific evidence has demonstrated that to be true. Non-vaxxers will attribute almost every negative ailment under the sun to vaccines whether there is good evidence to support it or not, based on anecdotes. The whole point is that they would never consider positive anecdotes as evidence in and of themselves unless they were backed up by evidence- double standard.
hypocrisy/double standards....

Another example of a negative characterization, which, I'll point out, is not actually based on scientific research but just on TEACOZY's observations. Oh my.

Quote:
This whole expert thing is a huge double standard on the anti/non-vaccine side. An oncologist isn't an expert on the immune system and we shouldn't listen to what he says but former gastroenterologists and kidney doctors are FREQUENTLY quoted on their views on vaccines and other infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. Then people say pediatricians aren't experts in vaccines and learn nothing about them in medical school....up until a pediatrician comes out against them. Then suddenly their view on vaccines is of utmost significance and importance. Then we have the double standard on the legal expert thing that Dakotacakes pointed out. Etc. Etc.

I think Dakotacakes hit the nail on the head with her observation that the way non/anti-vaccine people seem to determine whether someone is an expert or not is based on what their views on vaccines are. Against vaccines= expert. In favor of vaccines = big pharma shills who have no idea what they're talking about.
Dr Bob Sears faces possible revocation of medical license

This one is particularly amusing given that teacozy treated Offit's opinion on the history of DDT as though he were an expert on the topic.

I'm not going to go back and dig through hundreds more quotes to find more derogatory remarks. But they are there.

So, what is my point? It is obvious to me that the people who support vaccines consider people who question vaccines as:
stupid.
irresponsible.
selfish.
destructive of the public good.
unable to understand science
and so on and on.

Whereas, for those who criticize vaccines, they seem themselves as:
intelligent
thoughtful
reasonably cautious
well-researched
distrustful of drug companies and regulatory agencies, based on their track record

I'll be happy for anyone to call me anti-vaccine, if they mean the second list. But I'm not willing to bow down and accept the first list, especially as the justifications for those labels are based on:
1) anecdotes
2) opinions
3) refusal to discuss my actual points, questions and opinions
4) arguments from those high experts Oracular and speculative rapture (oh, and Dorit).
weisser hase 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 offline  
#25 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:09 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 525 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I am happy to do it for you, as dictionary.com is kind enough to compile a lot of differently sourced definitions in one place. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti?s=t

Yes. It means against or opposed. @samaxtics is OK with you vaccinating your kids, so she can't be "anti-vaccine." This is pretty easy and really not worth addressing ad nauseum.




No. The film addresses numerous vaccines from a vaccine-critical standpoint. Vaccine-critical is not the same thing as anti-vaccine.

Whether or not the film is addressing the MMR vaccine or other vaccines is an entirely separate question from whether or not the film is anti-vaccine. It seems that this thread is equivocating between those two issues.

I am happy to address the veracity of Vaughan's statements in another context or thread. But this thread asks whether her statements are anti-vaccine. They are not.

I'm honestly not sure what your link is trying to prove. But it has certainly not proven that this is an "anti-vaccine" film.
Don't have time to respond to everyone today but so what if she thinks I should be able to vaccinate my kids? She is personally opposed and against them - thus anti-vaccine by definition. Most people I know who identify as anti-GMO only want GMOs labeled, not to prevent other strangers around them from eating them if they choose to. I am anti- tobacco smoking, that doesn't mean I think cigarettes should be prohibited. I could go on and on. That is not what being personally anti-something means.

The documentary presents positions that are in opposition and critical towards vaccines in general as you have conceded, thus anti-vaccine.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#26 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:11 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Sadly but predictably, there is more dialogue about what to call parents of vaccine injured children from pro-vaxxers than there is any curiosity about or empathy for these children. And I'm tired of the obvious re-direction.

So @teacozy , how about those vaccine injured children and the plight of their families shown in the film? Polly's son's and countless other families' vaccine injuries were validated by their physicians. How have you and your fellow pro-vaxxers supported those who took one for the team?
They don't exist. According to the pro-vaccine they cannot exist because vaccine injury is vanishingly rare AND consists exclusively of anaphylactic shock. Any other reactions that might be brought up are, by definition, coincidences. And doctors who agree with parents about vaccine injury are bad doctors. Anti-vaccine even.
weisser hase 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 offline  
#27 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:18 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
First of all, I could list out tons and tons of dictionary definitions of anti. It means opposed or against something. If you are opposed or against the vast majority or all of the vaccines on the schedule, you are by definition anti-vaccine. I have not seen a single legitimate dictionary use the definitions that many non-vaxxers think should apply before being called anti-vaccine.

I understand people don't like the association of the term, but that is not the same thing as the term being wrong or incorrect.

Second, @Turquesa , is your position that the documentary ONLY takes issue with or has concerns about the combined MMR and not other vaccines? The first part of her quote in the clip is "We get into a very dangerous territory with vaccinations. If a drug company gets just one vaccine added to the schedule, it can make upwards of 30 billion dollars in one year." Is that concern only referencing the MMR in your opinion? If not, then you see the point that this film is not just critical about the combined MMR like people try to claim, but vaccines in general.

Her next quote is just incorrect. There are vaccines that are tested in double blind place trials. HPV vaccine, for example. That has been tested in thousands for years of follow up and in multiple countries. Here is a link covering some of those studies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262378/). Yet, as Craig Egan pointed out in a recent video of his, non-vaxxers hate that vaccine THE MOST! So this criticism rings hollow. It wouldn't matter if they were all tested this way, non-vaxxers would still consider anecdotes to be superior evidence and think the vaccine was dangerous. Second, vaccines are tested in combination with the schedule, she is just wrong on that point as well.
I posted this particular commentary in another thread on the topic of denying vaccine injury following Gardasil. Of course there was no response. Here it is again.

Quote:
I'm going to point, once again, to all the stuff that I've posted multiple times and which is always ignored. Not explained away. Just ignored. Consistently.

Multiple reactions to multiple doses of the same vaccination.

Which leads us directly into the problem of similar health conditions following single or multiple doses of the same vaccine.

Here is the scenario. Girl gets a dose of Gardasil and develops symptoms. Then she starts feeling better. She gets a second dose of Gardasil and the same symptoms return, but with more intensity. Reacting twice to the same drug or vaccine is generally considered solid evidence of a connection between the drug or vaccine and the symptoms. Which may be why no pro-vaccine person will ever discuss such a situation.

Taking the next step. Some of the people who develop symptoms after a single dose of the vaccine have similar symptoms to the people who developed symptoms multiple times following multiple doses. Using simple logic, it would follow that people who had problems but quit using the vaccine, probably ALSO had a reaction to the vaccine. Common factor? A vaccine.

Now, lets talk about Denmark. In Denmark there was a small group of doctors who were studying POTS. They had a certain flow of patients coming through. The flow increased AND many of the girls and young women were connecting the POTS to Gardasil. Anecdotes. So why should the doctors listen? Because the symptoms didn't match up to other cases of POTS. Because the volume of cases they were seeing began to go up and up. Because the system began to get swamped with the number of sick girls. Denmark actually opened five centers to handle possible Gardasil cases and still had a huge waiting list.

How is all of this dismissed? By splitting everything up and considering it in isolation. Doctors publish a study of the girls. Dismiss it. Just a case series. Consider background rate. Look at the big study done in Scandinavia that didn't turn up any increase in rates. And so on. Don't compare symptoms in Denmark with symptoms in Japan, with symptoms in France, with symptoms in Ireland. And when parents talk to each other, well, they are just ignorant parents. Especially don't analyze school attendance rates, one of the easiest and most straightforward ways to spot an increase in chronic illness in a particular population.

Vaccine injuries are not allowed to accumulate, they never become a trend, they are always anecdotes coming from ignorant parents who don't know how to tell a vaccine injury from any of the "normal" things that coincidentally occur following vaccinations. They must always be considered in isolation, one at a time, so they can be easily ignored.

Studies that show problems with vaccines are never allowed to accumulate, they never become a trend, they are always too small, or done by "bad" doctors, or defective in some way, they simply don't count against that big pile of science over there that supports vaccines. This one is actually fairly hilarious, as the big pile of science actually includes thousands of studies that show problems with vaccines, but which are simply ignored, while everyone pretends that all the science shows that vaccines are great. There is an exception to this game. Every once in a while a study will be pulled out of the pile and waved around to show that scientists do LOOK at the problems with vaccines and bad vaccines do get removed from use and see the system works beautifully and those anti-vaxers are a bunch of unreasonable crazies who don't appreciate how great everything really is.

I do have to say I admire the determination of the Gardasil boosters. Immune to evidence is an inadequate description of the way problems are handled. It is spectacular.
hypocrisy/double standards....
weisser hase 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 offline  
#28 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Is Christopher Exley "anti-vaccine" because he criticizes aluminum salts used in vaccines? https://www.hippocraticpost.com/infe...ants-vaccines/

Quote:
It is undeniable that a small proportion of individuals receiving vaccines which include aluminium adjuvants experience what have been called severe adverse events and such ‘events’ include brain encephalopathies. These severe adverse events are almost certainly caused by aluminium adjuvants and recent research showing how immune-responsive cells load up their cytoplasm with particulates of aluminium now offers mechanistic insight into how aluminium adjuvants are not only always toxic at the vaccine injection site but how they can occasionally be toxic at distant sites in the body too. Why some individuals are more susceptible to toxicity due to aluminium adjuvants is the subject of ongoing research.
So, in returning to my original question: How do you express a legitimate concern about aluminium adjuvants in vaccinations without being labelled as ‘anti-vaccine’?
The answer appears to be that you cannot. For example, since we started to research aluminium adjuvants two new ‘search options’ have appeared when Chris Exley is typed into Google, these options are ‘Chris Exley Vaccines’

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 offline  
#29 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:40 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
A commenter on the blog I just quoted attacks Dr. Exley:
Quote:
I might also suggest that if one is going to make authoritative pronouncements about vaccines then having credentials in immunology, neurobiology, or almost any important aspect of vaccine research would seem to be a good idea. The Lennard-Jones Centre, where Exley is based, is a foundation that focuses on physics, quantum mechanics and chemistry. Unfortunately there are so many people in the anti-vaccine industry who make pronouncements about vaccines when they have no expertise in the subject, that when someone else with no relevant qualifications comes along also making such pronouncements, one might understand why some would question the impartiality of the person making those pronouncements.
Being an expert on aluminum doesn't make you an expert on the behavior of aluminum salts in the human body? Even if you have used your scientific expertise to study all the scientific research on the behavior of aluminum salts in the human body? There is a lot of such scientific research. This search, which I'm sure is by no means exhaustive, turned up 704 articles https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...um+salts+human

But Dr. Exley isn't qualified to read them according to the commenter. Good to know.

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 offline  
#30 of 53 Old 08-11-2017, 06:50 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,469
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Fear of disease is being used. http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/20...e-of-alarmism/

Quote:
It focuses on the supposed threat posed by measles. Gunlock noted that if there is a five percent reduction in vaccinations against this childhood disease, the number of measles cases in the United States each year could increase by at least a factor of three. She referred to this possibility as “alarming” and warned that we might witness such a cataclysmic event if the number of nonmedical exemptions for schoolchildren keeps rising.1
Gunlock wrote:
Parents who cite religious, philosophical or personal objections to vaccination are like conscientious objectors in the war on disease. But they are putting their friends and neighbors at risk because they have fallen for antivaccine propaganda.1
This narrative is frequently used by those who seek to generate resentment and hostility against anyone who chooses to make independent and informed decisions regarding vaccination. The idea is to coerce such individuals to forswear their independence and thoughtfulness by sounding the alarm against them, thereby threatening to turn them into social outcasts.
The idea is also to create paranoia within the vaccinated community to the point where people start to become suspicious of anyone who they believe does not fully share their views on vaccination and even hesitant of going out in public for fear they might “catch something.” Observe how cleverly Gunlock manages to ratchet up the alarm and fuel this paranoia…
I'm not sure that paranoia is something that needs to be fueled. You know, that is the sort of behavior used by tyrants to shore up their power. It doesn't lead to healthy, open conversation.
weisser hase 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 offline  
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: 8,332

6 members and 8,326 guests
Albertomrogers , jamesmorrow , katelove , mary10 , thefragile7393 , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.