Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Position paper on outlawing personal exemptions Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
05-07-2013 05:11 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Fair enough! But I've never once heard you cite your data with, "See? It says so right here in Louder Than Words." :wino

That's because kathy said, " I don't turn to McCarthy as a source for vaccine information."

05-06-2013 06:33 PM
Turquesa Fair enough! But I've never once heard you cite your data with, "See? It says so right here in Louder Than Words." winky.gif
05-04-2013 11:18 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

We could have a whole, fun spin-off thread about sexism in the vaccine issue---Male-Dominated Medical Establishment v. Ignorant Young Mommies, the latter whom are too stupid to evaluate critically any information from the Big Bad Internet and turn to Jenny McCarthy for advice.
 

I actually like Jenny McCarthy.  Shhhhhh!!!  I read "Louder than Words" a number of years ago and really felt she captured some of the angst and heart-wrenching issues of having a child with autism.  I don't turn to McCarthy as a source for vaccine information, but as a storyteller, she is pretty darn good.  I also think she is fairly ballsy and has opened herself up to a lot of flack - something she did not have to do.  

 

I also have no issues with a parent (which is all she claims to be) saying what worked for her child and what didn't.  Goodness, she talks more about yeast in regards to her sons issues than vaccines - by far.  

 

Here is a link to the book.  I thought the reviews were really interesting.  It seems a lot of parents like it and a lot of people who work with those with autism do not.  

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/220563.Louder_Than_Words

 

 

In general:  I think the dismissal of Jenny McCarthy over the playboy issues is a load of crapola.  If you don't like her - fine.  Bringing up her playboy history though  shows your innate sexism or that you are trying to use sexism of others to turn them against JM.  She should be judged for her ideas and actions, not her playboy past.  

05-04-2013 10:56 AM
kathymuggle
nm.  issue gone!  smile.gif
05-04-2013 08:56 AM
dalia
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Not naming names, but if you look at any member's post history, you will see there are some who visit MDC just to argue. Argue and mock, and that's about it.

Yep. Have fallen into said person's trap more than once. Doh!!
05-04-2013 08:41 AM
beckybird

Not naming names, but if you look at any member's post history, you will see there are some who visit MDC just to argue. Argue and mock, and that's about it.

05-04-2013 05:17 AM
fruitfulmomma

http://www.mothering.com/community/a/vaccination-forum-guidelines

DH, This is a support only forum. You can find the rules for posting in the above link. Thanks.

 

 

I find the religious/priest comparisons quite fascinating. We thankfully have not run in to that yet and have a good family doctor who is supportive of us making our choices for our children.

05-04-2013 05:16 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHinJersey View Post

People who don't vaccinate currently have every right to do so, and by doing so to benefit  off everyone else's  investment in the common good.

You realize this is a SUPPORT forum for nonvaxing parents...you are assuming nonvaxing parents are benefiting from parents who vax.  

05-04-2013 03:59 AM
emmy526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


To answer your last question, I think it's even deeper than that.

A doctor once told me that doctors are the new priests. White coats have just replace cassocks and collars, but doctors still want to be the ones who control how you are born, how you live your life, how you give birth to and raise your children, what you put in your body, and even how you die. And just like the Early Church clergy, (ie the corrupt clergy when the Church was at its worst), a good many doctors aren't going to cede their power without a fight. Medical dogma is coming under as much questioning and scrutiny as early church dogma once did, and the more power-hungry doctors are lashing out to punish heretics and put them in their place--e.g. calling CPS if you want a second opinion and forcing you into their Exam Room-Confessionals if you opt out of vaccines so that you can be reprimended for your sins, (the latter is a new state law in WA and CA).

I'm a person of faith, btw, so I hope I didn't just come across as some religious bigot. I just call corruption where I see it.

Anyway, just musing aloud...

heres a link for you

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/217766-Modern-Medicine-The-Hidden-Influence-of-Beliefs-and-Fears

 

 

 

  •  

    Quote:
    • physicians have taken the place of priests;

    • vaccination plays the same initiatory role as baptism, and is accompanied by the same threats and fears;

    • the search for health has replaced the quest for salvation;

    • the fight against disease has replaced the fight against sin;

    • eradication of viruses has taken the place of exorcising demons;

    • the hope of physical immortality (cloning, genetic engineering) has been substituted for the hope of eternal life;

    • pills have replaced the sacrament of bread and wine;

    • donations to cancer research take precedence over donations to the church;

    • a hypothetical universal vaccine could save humanity from all its illnesses, as the Saviour has saved the world from all its sins;

     

05-03-2013 11:08 PM
Songy This thread is getting so interesting! I guess it is bc I read on this site all the time, but I'm genuinely surprised when I find out my "crunchy" friends actually vaccinate. It seems like everyone should know this stuff by now. . .
05-03-2013 01:06 PM
Turquesa Duplicate again. Dammit. LOL!
05-03-2013 01:06 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

The Polio thing is weird.  I do think vaccines had a role to play in the lessening of some diseases, and I would have thought Polio was one.  All the stats are very intresting to look at.   I tend to think this 95% thing is a number they pulled out of their butt.  They want close to everyone to vaccinate, so they pick a very high figure….it allows for effective scare-mongerring  through societal pressure if vaccine rates fall below 95%ish.  


 This is very telling - but more about the aap than anyone else.  

I think they are indulging to some degree in scientism  for this stance (wikipedia):

"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively,[1]

[2]

[3]

 to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method
 and approach, and the view that empirical science
 constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4]

 "

Why are they equating cultural, emotional, political and social context to irrationality?  They are many perfectly good cultural, emotional etc reasons to question vaccines.  Moreover, "parents immunization decisions" include those who vax - and I could make a very strong arguement that some of their decisions are based on things other than science.

Alas,  the aap is being a big ol hypocrit.  I am almost positive the reason they have come down in favour of circ is because 50%  of American baby boys are circ'ed, and they do not want to alienate those families. Their stance on circ is almost certainly cultural and political.  So they can make cultural and political decisions - but the rest of us are irrational for doing so. 

Does anyone ever thing the dislike to non-vaxxers boils down to a paternalistic, anti-parent type thing???  
                            

To answer your last question, I think it's even deeper than that.

A doctor once told me that doctors are the new priests. White coats have just replace cassocks and collars, but doctors still want to be the ones who control how you are born, how you live your life, how you give birth to and raise your children, what you put in your body, and even how you die. And just like the Early Church clergy, (ie the corrupt clergy when the Church was at its worst), a good many doctors aren't going to cede their power without a fight. Medical dogma is coming under as much questioning and scrutiny as early church dogma once did, and the more power-hungry doctors are lashing out to punish heretics and put them in their place--e.g. calling CPS if you want a second opinion and forcing you into their Exam Room-Confessionals if you opt out of vaccines so that you can be reprimended for your sins, (the latter is a new state law in WA and CA).

I'm a person of faith, btw, so I hope I didn't just come across as some religious bigot. I just call corruption where I see it.

Anyway, just musing aloud...
05-03-2013 12:42 PM
Turquesa Duplicate
05-03-2013 12:42 PM
Turquesa We could have a whole, fun spin-off thread about sexism in the vaccine issue---Male-Dominated Medical Establishment v. Ignorant Young Mommies, the latter whom are too stupid to evaluate critically any information from the Big Bad Internet and turn to Jenny McCarthy for advice.

ETA: Male-dominated doesn't always mean male *majority." An obstetric or pediatric practice with only female physicians may still represent a patriarchal worldview and engage in paternalistic practices.

Oh, and if you want immediate, concrete proof of all of the sexism, head to your favorite search engine and enter "Jenny McCarthy" and "bimbo."
05-03-2013 07:57 AM
nia82

Interesting. I agree it does play a role. The whole spiel about being the good little mommy doing what Mr. Doctor says is part of it. I encountered that attitude among military pediatricians a lot. I was lucky to switch to a group of FPs and both the male and female docs were very respectful, he however grew up in a super crunchy family and is quite familiar with non/delay/select people and knew they are not all stupid uneducated celebrity following idiots (the way one is usually portrayed by mass media): he knew reasons, and was aware about how educated those families were. He never gave me a hard time.

05-03-2013 07:52 AM
pek64 Certainly those most vocal are (predominantly) male. There might be paternalism going on. Female doctors may be influenced to go along with the views in an attempt to not rock the boat, and get a bit more 'respect'. I was told by one female pediatrician that she had a hard time passing the boards because of male doctors on the panel telling her that it was pointless to pass her, since she was going to quit when she had children.
05-03-2013 07:18 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I would say 'authoritarian' instead of paternalistic. They are the authorities and the 'ignorant' must do as they say.

I 100% agree it is authoritarian, but I wonder if it is paternalistic, too?  If men were the ones who went to most doctors appointments, and men were the ones who said "we will not be vaxxing" - I wonder what the climate would look like?  I am interested in looking at how women are viewed, paternalism etc feed into the vaxxing climate. 

 

I have heard a rumour that a lot of skeptic blogs are written by young men.  Maybe it is easier to see things as black and white and throw stones when it does not affect you personally?  I would also be interested to see how many women are in top level CDC/ AAP postions…..and discuss if this affects how policies are made/communicated.  

 

Maybe this is off topic (and I will save it for another thread)  - but a whole bunch of doctors essentially patting parents  (typically mothers) on the head and telling them not to worry their pretty little heads about vaccines drives me bonkers.  I find the outright dismissal of vaccine reactions that parents  saw with their own eyes to be anti- parents.  

05-03-2013 06:40 AM
nia82
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I would say 'authoritarian' instead of paternalistic. They are the authorities and the 'ignorant' must do as they say.


That. Last time I was forced to be  vaccinated was under Soviet rule, you know, in an unfree country that didn't allow for choice in your medical decisions nor could we ever leave the  country, not even to other Warsaw Pact countries....

05-03-2013 06:36 AM
pek64 I would say 'authoritarian' instead of paternalistic. They are the authorities and the 'ignorant' must do as they say.
05-03-2013 06:12 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


bigeyes.gif Um, the 1979 uptake rate for 3 doses of oral polio was 59.7%. I'm looking at that year because that was when there was the last recorded case of U.S.-born wild polio. So how the hell was polio eradicated with only little over half of the population vaccinated?? What am I missing here?

And why this recent new push to get 95% of the population vaccinate when clearly 60% did the trick for polio?

Yes, I realize that non-vaxxers have other explanation for polio, but if we just accepted for the sake of argument that vaccination eliminated polio....it just doesn't make sense!

This is all very eye-opening data.

 

The Polio thing is weird.  I do think vaccines had a role to play in the lessening of some diseases, and I would have thought Polio was one.  All the stats are very intresting to look at.   I tend to think this 95% thing is a number they pulled out of their butt.  They want close to everyone to vaccinate, so they pick a very high figure….it allows for effective scare-mongerring  through societal pressure if vaccine rates fall below 95%ish.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

Ugh, now look what they're saying about us....why did I read this first thing in the morning? Not good for the blood pressure!

Quote:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/5/e1619.short

 

Parents’ immunization decisions are not always based on rational logic that incorporates scientific evidence. Rather, the cultural, emotional, political, and social context within which decisions are made may introduce substantial irrationality.

 This is very telling - but more about the aap than anyone else.  

 

I think they are indulging to some degree in scientism  for this stance (wikipedia):

 

"Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively,[1][2][3] to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[4] "

 

Why are they equating cultural, emotional, political and social context to irrationality?  They are many perfectly good cultural, emotional etc reasons to question vaccines.  Moreover, "parents immunization decisions" include those who vax - and I could make a very strong arguement that some of their decisions are based on things other than science.

 

Alas,  the aap is being a big ol hypocrit.  I am almost positive the reason they have come down in favour of circ is because 50%  of American baby boys are circ'ed, and they do not want to alienate those families. Their stance on circ is almost certainly cultural and political.  So they can make cultural and political decisions - but the rest of us are irrational for doing so. 

 

Does anyone ever thing the dislike to non-vaxxers boils down to a paternalistic, anti-parent type thing???  

                            

05-03-2013 06:09 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

bigeyes.gif Um, the 1979 uptake rate for 3 doses of oral polio was 59.7%. I'm looking at that year because that was when there was the last recorded case of U.S.-born wild polio. So how the hell was polio eradicated with only little over half of the population vaccinated?? What am I missing here?

And why this recent new push to get 95% of the population vaccinate when clearly 60% did the trick for polio?

Yes, I realize that non-vaxxers have other explanation for polio, but if we just accepted for the sake of argument that vaccination eliminated polio....it just doesn't make sense!

This is all very eye-opening data.

 

Back in 1966 they believed they could eradicate measles within one year with a 55% vaccination rate.

 

Epidemiologic Basis For Eradication of Measles in 1967

05-03-2013 04:15 AM
beckybird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
As a long-time Seinfeld fan, I can't stop giggling at this. Let's all agree to pull it out from time to time on the debate forum Sheepish.gif

"Hello, Jerry." "Hellllllllllo Offit!"
 

Haha, thanks! Offit keeps popping up all over the place...now I know how Jerry feels lol!

 

 

 

Ugh, now look what they're saying about us....why did I read this first thing in the morning? Not good for the blood pressure!

Quote:

Parents’ immunization decisions are not always based on rational logic that incorporates scientific evidence. Rather, the cultural, emotional, political, and social context within which decisions are made may introduce substantial irrationality.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/5/e1619.short

05-02-2013 08:49 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100916.htm

 
"Immunization of children aged 19-35 months old against most vaccine-preventable diseases remains high in the United States, with coverage for most of the routine vaccines remaining at or over 90 percent, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
. Less than 1 percent of young children got no vaccinations, the CDC report said."
 
This chart shows historic rates - it is really interesting and firmly squashes the "VAD are rising because of low vaccination rates."  I get there are pockets of lower vaccination, but nothing like historic rates.
 
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

bigeyes.gif Um, the 1979 uptake rate for 3 doses of oral polio was 59.7%. I'm looking at that year because that was when there was the last recorded case of U.S.-born wild polio. So how the hell was polio eradicated with only little over half of the population vaccinated?? What am I missing here?

And why this recent new push to get 95% of the population vaccinate when clearly 60% did the trick for polio?

Yes, I realize that non-vaxxers have other explanation for polio, but if we just accepted for the sake of argument that vaccination eliminated polio....it just doesn't make sense!

This is all very eye-opening data.
05-02-2013 08:06 PM
kathymuggle

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100916.htm

 

 
"Immunization of children aged 19-35 months old against most vaccine-preventable diseases remains high in the United States, with coverage for most of the routine vaccines remaining at or over 90 percent, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of young children got no vaccinations, the CDC report said."
 
This chart shows historic rates - it is really interesting and firmly squashes the "VAD are rising because of low vaccination rates."  I get there are pockets of lower vaccination, but nothing like historic rates.
 
05-02-2013 07:44 PM
Turquesa Anyway, I can't find the CDC chart, so take this FWIW until I do. But vaccination coverage rates have never been better in the U.S. They were around 75-80% in my generation, before all of this media hysteria about killer infectious unvaccinated zombies coming to get you. In most parts of the country the rates hover around 90 + %. If anyone has a quickie link to that, I'd be grateful! blowkiss.gif

The push to punish, humiliate, and suppress exempting parents is something entirely different. It's not about science. It's about power, it's about money, and it's about how They don't like to be questioned.
05-02-2013 07:37 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Should have known Offit was involved somehow....



As a long-time Seinfeld fan, I can't stop giggling at this. Let's all agree to pull it out from time to time on the debate forum Sheepish.gif

"Hello, Jerry." "Hellllllllllo Offit!"

Anyway, I hear that carseat analogy one. More. Time. splat.gif

How about another one? Airbags! They're meant to keep us safe, but sometimes they turn us. At least we can turn airbags off...
05-02-2013 05:07 PM
serenbat
Quote:

Originally Posted by Minerva23 View Post

 

Just wondering how this type of counseling would look like.

 

 

very sure Offit would love to tell, I would bet he has it all ready to go too irked.gif think he stays up at night thinking about that kind of stuff! long, detailed and filled with lots of scary-IMO

05-02-2013 02:30 PM
pek64 The outbreak was started by someone not vaccinated? Is that like spontaneous combustion? That person was healthy, and suddenly became ill, without coming in contact with anyone. That's kind of how it sounds to me. Ridiculous! There is no "first person", unless it's a totally new disease.
05-02-2013 02:10 PM
minerva23

oard member Paul A. Offit, MD, said any legislation being considered should contain certain provisions; notably, that parents who are claiming exemptions be given counseling about the importance of immunization to their own child, as well as the community overall, and that parents would have to sign a statement that they understand the risks of not immunizing their child.
 

 

Yeah, counseling - aren't parents already being bullied into vaccination. Just wondering how this type of counseling would look like. Put all facts on the table, get some better studies out there and then let's talk!

 

Oh, and about the measles outbreak there are referring to in the article, I did not know that they found the first infected person who got this outbreak all started. So how can they even say it was caused by someone unvaccinated?

05-02-2013 11:48 AM
kathymuggle

I like how he said the risk of pertussis is 23 times higher in unvaxxed.  Way to cherry pick data and fear monger! 23 is the highest number I have ever seen (so of course they used it) the CDC said it was 8-10 times higher, I believe, and one of the newest stats I saw said 6.  

 

"Even a small number of unimmunized individuals in a community can facilitate the spread of disease,” according to the statement. The risk for measles is 35 times greater for an exempt child than a vaccinated one, 23 times higher for pertussis and nine times higher for varicella."

 

Oh, and yes seatbelts are sooo similar to vaccines.  The day we  have "adverse reactions to seatbelts" even without an accident,  let's talk. 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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