Website Pro Vaccination - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 02:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As I continue my eternal quest for the answer of what to do, I am feeling in fairness to my decision, I need to read more commentary and hopefully more scientific/medical references for reasons to vaccinate. In otherwords, a site as passionate as this for reasons to vaccinate since MDC's primary tone is selective to no vaccination.

Does anyone know of such sites? Have they solidified your decision to selectively or not vaccinate? Or have they only brought up more questions and confused the matter?

I just feel I need more balance other than the Ped is telling me to do this and reading CDC recommendations. I know many of the arguements of the vax group but mostly it seems a response to the no-vax group and I would love to read people reason's to vaccinate that is not necessarily a knee jerk reaction to the group that doesn't vaccinate.

Does that make any sense?

I stumbled accross one blog, unfortunatley didn't bookmark it, that shreded the studies by Grieer(s) (sp?) and also the who chelation/mercury/autism debated. There were passionate pro vax folks on that site posting but I was somewhat taken back by their animosity towards the folks that believe in chelation and a link between mercury/mmr and autism.

ETA: i did find the site in my browser history at http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot....-breaking.html

The blogger has serveral pages regardint the mercury/autism debate and some of the players.
anewmama is offline  
#2 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 03:10 PM
 
nataliachick7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Illinios
Posts: 1,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
anyone who firsthandedly does not see a child regress after the mmr vaccine or others can easily claim there is no link. for the thousands of families whos children became developmentally delayed immediately following vaccines, they will tell you there is more than enough evidence.
i find personal experiences with vaccines way more valuable than any scientific study. there are just way too many horrific stories i have read on this site alone....that alone would prevent me from vaccinating. but that is just me.
for instance, this is an mdc's mommas blog site i found to be incredible:
http://www.findingkate.org/

im sure you can find a ton of results if you google the words vaccines or vaccinations. most everything out there is pro vax.

DS 5-11-06
nataliachick7 is offline  
#3 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 03:38 PM
 
Romana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you go to babycenter, the vaccination debate board there has more pro-vaxers than this board, but it's honestly not that different and several of the posters are the same.

If you want pro-vax material, I'd read the CDC pink book and the manufacturer's websites. I find those to be some of the most helpful resources, because I know they're there to be in support of vaccination and I don't need to worry about someone having a huge bias against vaccinating when reading that information. Instead, the bias probably goes the other way, and that allows me to decide whether I find that information compelling or not.

Good luck in your search for info/discussion.

ETA: I glanced at the blog you linked, but honestly I almost immediately discount sources who come across as that angry/emotional. It can be entertaining to read, but it's rarely even a remotely complete picture of the situation. Personally, I prefer to seek out the most reliable sources of factual information that I can, and start drawing my own conclusions.
Romana is offline  
#4 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 04:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Romana9+2, it is pretty angry isn't it? That is what led me to ask if the pro-vax people, not the officiales i.e. CDC, AAP, etc, are all so angry. To me, that anger comes across as people who feel threatened. I know I can read the CDC and manufacturer's info, but I was honestly wondering if there are any layman's opinions out there that come across as rational (not angry like that site) and can back their opinion or pro stance with solid information.

I will check out baby center as they are a much more "mainstream" site I believe.
anewmama is offline  
#5 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 07:44 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
There are two knowledgable provaxers at BBC, and one of them posts over here. Technically, she's a selective vaxer, though. But she generally argues the pro-vax side when debates come up. But the arguments of the knowledgable "laymen" on both sides are far, far, far superior to anything you'll find on a pro-vax or anti-vax website. The "websites" on both sides overwhelmingly tend to be emotive and factually incorrect.

This debate honestly ends up boiling down to a lot of unknowns most of the time. And really, most people who know the most about this subject end up thinking that vaxing or not vaxing probably isn't a huge deal either way. Vaccines aren't the be-all-end-all evil, and they're not the great saviors of humanity, either.
mamakay is offline  
#6 of 15 Old 06-18-2007, 09:48 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Yes, but the huge increase in vaccines over the last 10 or 15 years has been pushing our luck a bit...hence the increase in selective vaxers even in the pro-vax contingent.
Deborah is online now  
#7 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 12:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
anewmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
There are two knowledgable provaxers at BBC, and one of them posts over here. Technically, she's a selective vaxer, though. But she generally argues the pro-vax side when debates come up. But the arguments of the knowledgable "laymen" on both sides are far, far, far superior to anything you'll find on a pro-vax or anti-vax website. The "websites" on both sides overwhelmingly tend to be emotive and factually incorrect.

This debate honestly ends up boiling down to a lot of unknowns most of the time. And really, most people who know the most about this subject end up thinking that vaxing or not vaxing probably isn't a huge deal either way. Vaccines aren't the be-all-end-all evil, and they're not the great saviors of humanity, either.
What do you mean BBC? British Broadcasting Co.... a forum there? Would you say that the tone here tends to have emotive and somewhat incorrect qualities at time?

I like what you said in the second paragraph. An interesting perspective.
anewmama is offline  
#8 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 01:30 AM
 
Emmeline II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
What do you mean BBC? British Broadcasting Co.... a forum there? Would you say that the tone here tends to have emotive and somewhat incorrect qualities at time?

I like what you said in the second paragraph. An interesting perspective.
I think they mean Baby Center.

"It should be a rule in all prophylactic work that no harm should ever be unnecessarily inflicted on a healthy person (Sir Graham Wilson, The Hazards of Immunization, 1967)."
Emmeline II is offline  
#9 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 06:01 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Would you say that the tone here tends to have emotive and somewhat incorrect qualities at time?
Sometimes. Depends on the thread and the people posting. There's a lot of misinformation that gets passed around on all message boards. With a really scientifically technical debate like the vax issue, it takes a year or two to get a feel for what's going on, and start being able to identify the valid points on both sides. There are a whole, whole lot of rumors and misunderstandings on both sides. Since there are more "antivaxers" here, there's more "antivax misinformation" here. I've been to pro-vax boards (with nary an antivaxer in sight) and it was the same thing there, but it was all pro-vax misinformation.
mamakay is offline  
#10 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 08:33 PM
 
nwmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here are a few sites you might find useful:

http://vaccinethebook.typepad.com/
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/pare...luatingWeb.cfm
http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/
nwmom is offline  
#11 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 09:03 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
A very interesting selection...:
Deborah is online now  
#12 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 09:42 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Regarding the first link, I still like where Arthur Allen reminisces about the good ol' days when parents didn't have access to information and just did whatever their doctors said without asking any of those pesky questions.

At least the man's honest.

ETA:

http://vaccinethebook.typepad.com/mt...pv_the_ad.html

Quote:
But this is all hideously complex. The only news that parents really need is, "give your daughters the vaccine." If the vaccine had been made available 20 years ago, it's probably the only information they would have gotten. In 1993, the medical authorities began vaccinating babies against hepatitis B, which like HPV is generally a "sin" virus in that it is spread predominantly, in the U.S. anyway, through sex and shared hypodermic needles. (Mothers can also transfer it to their babies, and when babies get the disease they often get if for life, whereas people in their 20s can easily shed the virus following an acute infection... another complex story)

In 1993, as evidenced by the newspapers and medical journals, there was not so much resistance from parents to the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine--although there has come to be some grumbling in recent years.

But now, because of the not entirely unmerited mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry, the quick spread of information, good and bad, over the Internet, and our puritanical

Beruehrungsangst

over sex, we have to get the whole complex story of HPV before we commit to the vaccine. In fact the story is so complicated that I imagine many people watching the Merck advertisement feel the same way they do watching any of these direct-to-consumer ads: skeptical and jaded. Why is all this necessary? A lot of Christian conservatives are said to want to withhold the vaccine from their daughters because they feel it sends a message that encourages sexual experimentation. However, it wouldn't send that message if they or their daughters didn't know what it was for and just did what their doctors told them to do. After all, this is a vaccine to prevent a disease, not encourage sex. Ironically, most of the Christian right organizations that initially feared the vaccine now say they think it's a good product.

I know, I know, this is all wishful thinking. Informed consumers want choices, informed consent, this is the information age, etc. ad nauseum. I guess this is just a longwinded way of saying that I think this is a good vaccine.
It sort of takes your breath away, doesn't it?
mamakay is offline  
#13 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 11:23 PM
prettypixels is offline  
#14 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 11:47 PM
 
nataliachick7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Illinios
Posts: 1,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
oh wow...a bit naseauting. :

DS 5-11-06
nataliachick7 is offline  
#15 of 15 Old 06-19-2007, 11:59 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,602
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Different strokes for different folks
Deborah is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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