Why the University of Google bothers pro-vaxers so much - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-27-2007, 10:03 PM
 
APMomOfKimmyN-Maya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well said!
APMomOfKimmyN-Maya is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-27-2007, 11:27 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktbug View Post
And let them know our IP addresses?!? They'd come get us, wouldn't they? In big white vans with iso suits on a la E.T. or something!! *dons foil hat, again*
Perhaps the people who really like the CDC will take on the project? They should be safe from the white vans or black helicopters or flying saucers: right?

And it would be a very effective way of proving to us that the CDC really means well and all that misinformation and fearmongering currently visible on the parent information pages is just the result of errors by junior interns, rather than a conscious program of...what, exactly?

Another group could tackle the AAP and get them to encourage peds to be genuinely tolerant of choice in vaxing.

And then there is the whole problem of reactions. The best way to get this effectively sorted out is for every doctor in the U.S. (hey why not worldwide?) to start meticulously documenting every single reaction. In no time we'd have a high quality database that could be analyzed to spot problems with particular batches of vaccine and particular vaccines and with children with pre-existing conditions and all sorts of other useful information. This could be huge!

If the vaccine establishment really means well there are immediate steps to take to improve the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and to relieve the rational fears and concerns of educated parents (and parents with spelling and grammatical problems, too).

Go for it!!!
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-27-2007, 11:50 PM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know this thread has strayed very far away from the OP, but I just wanted to make another illustration of how people view "The Internet" as the source of "All Bad Information" - when my grandma came to visit me shortly after dd1 was born, 3.5 years ago, she very vehemently told me about a friend's granddaughter, who "is waiting to feed solids until 6 months! She read it on the internet. I can't believe how stupid some people are!".
Grandma was a nurse until retiring about 10 years ago.
HerthElde is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:15 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
I know this thread has strayed very far away from the OP, but I just wanted to make another illustration of how people view "The Internet" as the source of "All Bad Information" - when my grandma came to visit me shortly after dd1 was born, 3.5 years ago, she very vehemently told me about a friend's granddaughter, who "is waiting to feed solids until 6 months! She read it on the internet. I can't believe how stupid some people are!".
Grandma was a nurse until retiring about 10 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
I know this thread has strayed very far away from the OP, but I just wanted to make another illustration of how people view "The Internet" as the source of "All Bad Information" - when my grandma came to visit me shortly after dd1 was born, 3.5 years ago, she very vehemently told me about a friend's granddaughter, who "is waiting to feed solids until 6 months! She read it on the internet. I can't believe how stupid some people are!".
Grandma was a nurse until retiring about 10 years ago.

Sigh! When I was a young mother 40 years ago, all the "best" child-raising info suggested starting solid foods between 10 days and two weeks. I kid you not. See how the Internet has undermined the health of babies! The one exception I found was "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" by LLL. :
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:19 AM
 
ktbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 2,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I heard something about that on All Things Considered on Friday; they were profiling a set of twins who'd been given up for adoption and separated shortly after birth, but unbeknownst to them, they were being studied by a team of psychologists who'd designed a nature vs nurture experiment concerning twins raised separately. The doctor's notes on one of the girls before she went home from the hospital (and back then, they used to stay like 2 weeks in the hospital after birth) said "takes solid food voraciously". I was floored.

This really HAS strayed from the original topic at hand!
I'm glad, for one. I was getting tired of all the snark.
ktbug is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:24 AM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophiekat View Post
so do you think that those MD's and PhD's (or MD/PhD's ) who choose not to vaccinate are not legitimate?
i'm trying to decipher what equals "legitimate" -- after all, first the claim was that anyone scientifically trained couldn't possibly be anti-vax, now it's that a "legitimate" scientifically trained person couldn't think vaxxes patently bad :
MK did clarify this correctly. Read my post carefully, I didn't say that choosing to not vaccinate nullifies one's legitimacy. I did say that no legitimate biomedical scientist and/or MD would come to the conclusion of being anti-vaccinationist. By legitimate I mean a scientist and/or MD that has not gone bat-shit insane and/or has a personal and financial gain promoting anti-vaccine propaganda. Remove all the MDs toeing the party line and my answer will still be the same.

SM
Science Mom is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:36 AM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,332
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
I do kinda like the term "antivaccinationist" after reading about Leicester.
I bet you would have been one of them, too, back then, SM.

Those were some clever oldskool antivaxers....lol
mamakay is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:44 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Science Mom View Post
MK did clarify this correctly. Read my post carefully, I didn't say that choosing to not vaccinate nullifies one's legitimacy. I did say that no legitimate biomedical scientist and/or MD would come to the conclusion of being anti-vaccinationist. By legitimate I mean a scientist and/or MD that has not gone bat-shit insane and/or has a personal and financial gain promoting anti-vaccine propaganda. Remove all the MDs toeing the party line and my answer will still be the same.

SM
As usual I'm having a little trouble following your argument.

It sounds to me as though you feel as though a medical scientist could legitimately decline vaxes for themselves or their own children and this would be fine. However, if that same scientist spoke up against vaxing in general they would be...what, exactly?

Or am I misunderstanding you?
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:51 AM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
As usual I'm having a little trouble following your argument.

It sounds to me as though you feel as though a medical scientist could legitimately decline vaxes for themselves or their own children and this would be fine. However, if that same scientist spoke up against vaxing in general they would be...what, exactly?

Or am I misunderstanding you?
Quacks, she's saying Those scientists would be quacks.
Now, I wonder . . . changes in epidemiology of diseases, waning immunity as vaxes wear off, rising chronic conditions (oh, wait, those can never be definitively linked to vax, there's no "scientific" way to do so), the neverending battle to eradicate disease . . . I'm simply going to wait 20 or 30 years and observe . I mean, assuming we haven't destroyed the planet by then
HerthElde is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 12:53 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Dr. Richard Moskowitz graduated summa cum laude from NYU and Harvard Medical School and then became a Homeopathic Doctor after attending school in Greece. Is he "batshit" insane? He is still an M.D. He is quite anti-vax.


The definition of an unproven remedy or medicine is quackery.

Vaccinations have never been proven scientifically. That means one selected epidemiological group is given the vaccine and the other matched epidemiological group given a dummy remedy, and then the outcomes are compared over time for many factors, especially incidence of the diseases they are supposed to prevent and any side-effects This has never been done with any vaccine in any meaningful manner.

Therefore, vaccines are a quack medicine. Unproven. Dangerous. Quackery.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:04 AM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
He believes in homeopathy. Which as of yet cannot be "proven" by modern scientists (because they're too arrogant to believe they need someone qualified to show them how it actually works). So, yes, he must be batshit insane.
HerthElde is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:06 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Dr. Richard Moskowitz graduated summa cum laude from NYU and Harvard Medical School and then became a Homeopathic Doctor after attending school in Greece. Is he "batshit" insane? He is still an M.D. He is quite anti-vax.


The definition of an unproven remedy or medicine is quackery.

Vaccinations have never been proven scientifically. That means one selected epidemiological group is given the vaccine and the other matched epidemiological group given a dummy remedy, and then the outcomes are compared over time for many factors, especially incidence of the diseases they are supposed to prevent and any side-effects This has never been done with any vaccine in any meaningful manner.

Therefore, vaccines are a quack medicine. Unproven. Dangerous. Quackery.
Applejuice, the normal rules are suspended when it comes to vaccines. They sort of transcend all of the regular scientific operations.

We studied how to set up a study in library school. The whole thing: random choice of subjects, control group, everything. But none of this can be properly done when it comes to vaccines. And we obviously cannot stop vaccinating. So it doesn't matter if it is quackery or unproven or dangerous or anything like that. We must continue vaccinating!

My prescription: Repeat "We must continue vaccinating" as your mantra until you overcome your mental illness. I hope it works. This whole hang-up about science has got to be worked through. : [ps I'm joking, just in case it wasn't perfectly clear]
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:10 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
I know you are joking.

However, if you have ever heard a radio broadcast by Dr. Dean Edell M.D. discussing vaccinations, that is exactly what he says, and he is NOT joking. He has been on the air for over thirty years. He is an opthamalogist by training, not a pediatrician or even immunologist. He has, I believe, seven children with two women, and I seriously and personally do not believe for a minute that he vaccinated any of them. His family was in the HFS business for years.

Sad. So, so sad! !

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:11 AM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay View Post
I do kinda like the term "antivaccinationist" after reading about Leicester.
I bet you would have been one of them, too, back then, SM.

Those were some clever oldskool antivaxers....lol
I don't know as much about the Leicester Method as I perhaps should. Given the period, you might be right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
As usual I'm having a little trouble following your argument.

It sounds to me as though you feel as though a medical scientist could legitimately decline vaxes for themselves or their own children and this would be fine. However, if that same scientist spoke up against vaxing in general they would be...what, exactly?

Or am I misunderstanding you?
Say for instance a biomedical scientist observed a severe vaccine reaction in their child or perhaps has a family history that may be contraindicated for them to receive vaccines. They would be apt to decline immunisations for themselves but wouldn't demonise vaccines for the general public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Dr. Richard Moskowitz graduated summa cum laude from NYU and Harvard Medical School and then became a Homeopathic Doctor after attending school in Greece. Is he "batshit" insane?
That would be a resounding YES!!!

SM
Science Mom is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:14 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
I know you are joking.

However, if you have ever hear a broadcast by Dr. Dean Edell M.D. discussing vaccinations, that is exactly what he says, and he is NOT joking.

Sad. So, so sad! !
Haven't heard a broadcast by that dude. Good thing. I might hurt the radio.

There are a lot of pro-vaccine fanatics around, doctors and non-doctors and they don't joke. Most of them are convinced that our children are going to die and other children are going to die and we are evil and irresponsible. And that is on the days when they are feeling kindly and generous.

Also, everyone who questions vaxing is totally fear-driven.
Deborah is online now  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:16 AM
 
sophiekat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: revolting with the knitters
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
note to self: do not write reply, leave to tend crying baby, come back and hit "post" before checking to see if your question has already been answered . . .

so SM, you wouldn't believe an MD or a PhD could look at the vaccination program as a whole and not recommend vaxxes save for isolated reactions?

would an MD or PhD (in a medical field, just so we're clear on science qualifications) who believes that the modern vaccination program was founded on junk science not be legitimate according to you?

i'm genuinely curious as to where this "legitimacy" line is drawn.

Obstruct livery vehicles!

sophiekat is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:17 AM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Also, everyone who questions vaxing is totally fear-driven.
Ironic. I was fear-driven back when I was rabidly pro-vax. Since my induction to the dark side, I can honestly say that I am more at peace with health matters than I ever had been previously.
Then again, I must be insane :
HerthElde is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:19 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
They would be apt to decline immunisations for themselves but wouldn't demonise vaccines for the general public.
No one here is seriously telling others not to vaccinate. I just want doctors to leave their vaccine pickin hands off of my own children.

What I do not like is people blindly walking into the ped's office trusting blindly in the bad advice dished out wholesale there. Over the decades, pediatricians have advised in favor of infant formula, early feeding of solids, radium boxes on the thymus, gold tubes in the ears, overdosing on antibiotics, and routine tonsillectomies to prevent colds.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:37 AM
 
mama de dos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Jumping in here late, but wanted to say that my dh is a "real' scientist with a very real PhD from a real university (U of MN). His degree is in neurobiology and genetics. He's also done post-doctoral research at Duke University, studying brain structure and function, specifically (though not exclusively) in the cerebellum.

Believe me when I tell you that he freaking EARNED that degree with significant help from ME. It's real and it's here to stay.

(I, however, do not have a scientific degree, but I am an exellent reader and thinker in spite of that fact! Imagine that! I do have an undergrad. degree and many hours of grad work as well, but none in specific scientific disciplines.)

Whew. Now that our creds are established, WE DO NOT VAX!!!! Gasp, shudder, and all the rest! We also homeschool (!) and homebirth!! :

Yes, my real scientist dh is on board with all of these decisions, having researched and considered them along with me. We did (and continue to do) hard research, with primary, peer-reviewed journals, going to primary sources, etc. My dh refuses (wisely) to take something as true just because it's printed/published somewhere. That includes the likes of the CDC website!

The 3 primary questions that guide or decision not to vax are:

*Is it safe?

*Is it effective?

*Is it necessary?

So far, the balance on all of those has tipped toward not vaxxing.

Something to consider for ScienceMom and Holly, and others. I've noticed that at least one of you had a homebirth, and another has something in her sig about natural birth being best. I obviously agree wholeheartedly .

However, the vast majority of mainstream OB's do NOT in any way, shape or form. Most of them will argue vehemently that you are abusive and risking your baby's life by choosing to birth out of hospital. Now, that is COMPLETELY untrue scienitifically, and a basic review of the research will confirm that. However, OBs and other medical professionals do not know that. They practice many things that are proven to be *harmful* to moms and babies and do it daily in the name of medical science and 'care.' Why should the vax issue be any different? How do you reconcile those scientists' with real degrees, blatant disregard of research and evidence based-care? If they so wantonly disregard science, what makes you think some other scientists don't as well, especially when it's for something so culturally ingrained as positive as vaccines?

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm truly interested in your thoughts.

Best to you all,
Mama de tres (who needs to change her user name!)
mama de dos is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:47 AM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 2,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmm, it also just struck me that most doctors in my area think that vitamins and nutrients as a means of healing are hogwash. Quackery.
HerthElde is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 01:57 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Why, mama de dos/tres, you and your DH are just a pair of moon bats!

Honestly, only fools would want to make sure a preventative as an artificial immunization was effective, safe, and really necessary, over and above the well known and well documented side effects. (all tongue in cheek of course)

Congratulations on the birth of your new one!

Speaking of OBs, how many of them routinely receive the MMR since they are the ones in constant contact with pregnant women? Studies show that only 20% of them do receive the MMR boosters because they do not want to be crippled by rheumatoid arthritis, a well-known, well-documented side-effect of the MMR.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 02:33 AM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just love the whole arugument that studies published in peer-reviewed journals by reputable scientists are "unbiased". It makes me everytime I read it. I've read enough studies to know that's really not the case - especially when the study says one thing and the data another.

I also love the subtle inference that those of us who are not MDs or PhDs are incapable of truly understanding these issues or commenting on them because of our lack of credentials - while at the same time agreeing that one should "do their research". Plenty of doublespeak going on here.

OP - I loved your post and had to chuckle a little when I saw the number of pages of responses it generated in one day!
pampered_mom is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 03:10 AM
 
holly6737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama de dos View Post
Something to consider for ScienceMom and Holly, and others. I've noticed that at least one of you had a homebirth, and another has something in her sig about natural birth being best. I obviously agree wholeheartedly .

However, the vast majority of mainstream OB's do NOT in any way, shape or form. Most of them will argue vehemently that you are abusive and risking your baby's life by choosing to birth out of hospital. Now, that is COMPLETELY untrue scienitifically, and a basic review of the research will confirm that. However, OBs and other medical professionals do not know that. They practice many things that are proven to be *harmful* to moms and babies and do it daily in the name of medical science and 'care.' Why should the vax issue be any different? How do you reconcile those scientists' with real degrees, blatant disregard of research and evidence based-care? If they so wantonly disregard science, what makes you think some other scientists don't as well, especially when it's for something so culturally ingrained as positive as vaccines?

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm truly interested in your thoughts.

Best to you all,
Mama de tres (who needs to change her user name!)
I had a homebirth after cesarean, and that's in my siggy so I suppose you're directing your question to me. First, the fact that natural childbirth and VBACs are safe for the majority of women *is* proven scientifically. There are many peer-reviewed articles on the safety of homebirth and VBACs as well as the danger of EFM, epidurals, etc. That is no secret and there is no conspiracy going on there. Unfortunately, many OBs prefer to disregard those studies in favor of "traditional obstetrics". They are going against all of the recent research on topics such as VBAC, EFM, etc. So it's not that the research is showing that natural childbirth is unsafe and so OBs are using that information to determine how they will practice. It's that the research is clearly showing that natural childbirth is safe and OBs are going against the research.

Secondly, this isn't an international problem. If you look all over the developed world you will see that this is an American problem. In other developed countries all over the world OBs and midwives are following the research and it's showing in their lower morbidity rates. The Neatherlands, for example, has one of the best morbidity rates in the world and 25% of their births are planned homebirths. If this were an international phenomena, that natural childbirth is unsafe, I would be more inclined to have birthed at a hospital via repeat c/s. But that's just not the case. It's all about risk assessment.

Compare this with vaccines. The research shows that vaccines are safe and effective. The MDs are following the research in this case. Furthermore, the idea that vaccines are safe and effective is an international phenomena. It isn't just something that's seen in America. I am pro-science. I will go where the research leads. The research led me to the fact that VBACs are safe for the majority of women and it also lead me to the fact that vaccines are safe and effective. If good research comes out that says that "whoops! vaccines aren't safe and effective!", then I will stop getting them. I really will. I'm not in love with needles or anything. But that hasn't happened and I doubt it ever will. And so I will continue to vaccinate myself and my children. It's not a faith in medical degrees. It's a faith in the scientific process. And I mean flame me if you want, but I do believe in the scientific process. If vaccines weren't safe and effective, I truly believe there would be more studies out there showing that phenomena like there are a plethera of studies out there showing the safety of VBACs. You can't look at just one study, but you have to look at the general consensus. But the research just isn't there. Or at least I, and many, many other people, can't find it.

CNM mama.

holly6737 is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 03:23 AM
 
pacificbliss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 1,376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Hmm, I don't like the terms pro-vax and anti-vax. I like to think that each parent makes an informed choice for their child. In other words a "pro-vaxer" would opt out of a vaccine if necessary and an "anti-vaxer" would opt in. Maybe that's just the dream world in my head. I like it here, it's nice

So, to the OP, my son is fully vaccinated (10 months) but the University of Google doesn't bother me a bit. I enjoy how readily available information is these days even if it takes forever to sift through it.
pacificbliss is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 03:23 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
The Neatherlands, for example, has one of the best morbidity rates in the world and 25% of their births are planned homebirths.
OT, looks like homebirths are on the decline in the Netherlands. It used to be 60% according to Immaculate Deception first published in 1973. So much for scientific studies, evidence based medical practices, and socialized health care systems.

Quote:
The research shows that vaccines are safe and effective.
What research? There is plenty of research that shows them to be ineffective and have horrific side effects including a slow and painful death.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 07:36 AM
 
crittersmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: half mad and behind the palms
Posts: 1,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheacoby View Post
You are being prejudiced.
I agree.Not every mama who posts here, has an empty lap with time to spend on spellcheck and not every mama is American or from an English speaking country.
Having access to the internet and google has been quite helpful especially when a person is in the military and it is the only way to obtain your degree.Congratulations to those mamas who have been able to achieve a degree.I know it took a lot of time,sweat and money.

joy.gifme, herding 5 critters a cat and a dog. DS 11/01, DS 10/04, DD 2/06, DS 5/07 and DD 9/10

crittersmom is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 08:33 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Ironic. I was fear-driven back when I was rabidly pro-vax. Since my induction to the dark side, I can honestly say that I am more at peace with health matters than I ever had been previously.
Ditto! Except I shifted over to the enlightened side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
What I do not like is people blindly walking into the ped's office trusting blindly in the bad advice dished out wholesale there. Over the decades, pediatricians have advised in favor of infant formula, early feeding of solids, radium boxes on the thymus, gold tubes in the ears, overdosing on antibiotics, and routine tonsillectomies to prevent colds.
Add smoking for asthma to that.
Gitti is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:00 AM
 
anniedare's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Hmmmm. I guess I missed a big hullaballoo. I do want to say that I love this original post because it dovetails so nicely with a piece over in activism about one of the characteristics of fascism being control over information. The internet is already blowing that direction and it's a shame that so many therefore lump the non-reputable sites in with the reputable ones. Personally, I think we need the junk science in order to have a good grasp on the breadth of the main argument and to understand where the junkees are coming from in order to meet their rhetoric. After all, it's a country where 85% of medicine buyers can't adequately read the back of the box when dosing their children. So this information is a significant part of who we are as a people, junky or not.

Anyhoo, just coming from one non-vaxing, unschooling Ph.D. mama (in the social sciences, however, so take it with a grain of salt!! lol).
anniedare is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:29 AM
Banned
 
Science Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophiekat View Post
note to self: do not write reply, leave to tend crying baby, come back and hit "post" before checking to see if your question has already been answered . . .

so SM, you wouldn't believe an MD or a PhD could look at the vaccination program as a whole and not recommend vaxxes save for isolated reactions?
Correct.

Quote:
would an MD or PhD (in a medical field, just so we're clear on science qualifications) who believes that the modern vaccination program was founded on junk science not be legitimate according to you?

i'm genuinely curious as to where this "legitimacy" line is drawn.
Correct. Let me add the disclaimer that I don't think that a scientist that critically examines the literature will come to the conclusion that all vaccines are necessary or that recommended schedules are in the best interest of the child. Only that legitimate scientists will not be patently anti-vaccinationist regardless of their own personal choices.

SM
Science Mom is offline  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Vaccinations have never been proven scientifically. That means one selected epidemiological group is given the vaccine and the other matched epidemiological group given a dummy remedy, and then the outcomes are compared over time for many factors, especially incidence of the diseases they are supposed to prevent and any side-effects This has never been done with any vaccine in any meaningful manner.

Therefore, vaccines are a quack medicine. Unproven. Dangerous. Quackery.
This is why the risk to benefit argument does not hold up. The only variable in question here is the vaccine. That is the variable to be tested and the ONLY, I repeat ONLY, way it can be tested for outcome is to compare it to NON-VACCINATION.

The entire risk to benfit argument is fallacious. We know for a fact that there are risks to vaccination as the stream of possible adverse reactions is long and winding, including death, but there is NO PROOF that there is a benefit. It cannot be proven until the tests mentioned above are done.

They just say there is a benefit and poof, just like magic, it somehow exists. The risk to benefit crowd make it sound like vaccination is a benefit compared to non-vaccination. That's the entire assumption. Where is the proof of that? I can see where people get sidetracked and say, "I've looked into it and the risks of getting the disease is less than the risk of the dangers of adverse reactions to the vaccine." That makes sense but that is not what the risk to benefit is about to the vaccine industry. It's not really about getting the disease, it's more about getting the vaccine and that's why they ALWAYS bring it up when someone gets seriously injured or dies from a vaccine. It's a CYA tactic.

People just say stuff and it gets repeated ad infinitum/ad nauseam, so that somehow makes it true. I still know people who swear WMD's were found.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off