Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! 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)
03-02-2014 12:40 PM
Pookietooth

This is an old thread. It is really scary to think about what goes on in pharmaceutical and government offices to promote vaccines and to deny that they can cause harm. Enough said.

03-02-2014 07:13 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukuspot View Post
 

I have not the time to read 13 pages of comments :)

 

But I do want to say that I'm a non-vaxxer and yet this article leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.  I do not think it is research based at all (ultrasounds have NOT been linked to autism, just right off the bat) and the mama guilt is intense.

I don't think the author was trying to imply causation with things such as ultrasound and autism - more like pointing out possible links.

 

If the reader is interested in something the author says, the onus is on the reader to research, in an evidence based way, if there is any merit to what she saying. 

03-01-2014 08:46 PM
nukuspot

But I do feel really, really badly for her to take this huge weight on her shoulders.

03-01-2014 08:44 PM
nukuspot

I have not the time to read 13 pages of comments :)

 

But I do want to say that I'm a non-vaxxer and yet this article leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.  I do not think it is research based at all (ultrasounds have NOT been linked to autism, just right off the bat) and the mama guilt is intense.

03-01-2014 03:37 PM
Songy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JNajla View Post

I personally couldn't care less if you choose to vaccinate your children or not. That is your choice as a parent. I certainly am not trying to persuade anyone in any direction. My biggest issue is when people dem vaccines "toxic" but then feed their children toxic food, use plastic foodware, have furniture full of flame reardants, use toxic cleaning and personal care products (most women on this thread do not fall into that category).


What a relief! (Seriously!) I'm glad you don't care when others don't vaccinate. Lately, it seems, many pro-vaxxers feel it is their mission to convince others to vaccinate.
04-05-2013 09:56 AM
cynthia mosher

Edited to remove post placed in wrong forum.

03-11-2013 11:56 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Hmm - well despite what you think about me (and I meant I read books to relax - bit different to my internet habit!) I did spend a couple minutes researching the book you recommend. 

 

So I found their blog, and I kid you not they suggest the Newton massacre was caused by vaccination (indirectly, but still). That's about as low as it gets for me: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/weekly-wrap-lanza-newtown-autism.html

 

Not convincing me it's worth my money or time.... 

 

Dan Olmstead never suggest that, not even indirectly.  In fact, he only mentions vaccines ONCE, as one possible source of the heavy metal poisoning that is known to cause sensory processing disorder.

 

Mr. Olmstead also goes on to repeat what had already been stated on the Age of Autism Blog: "Regardless of whether or not the shooter truly is on the autism spectrum, we wish to make it clear that autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are in no way associated with criminal violence. More often than not, people with ASDs are the victims of such violence, not the people committing them." 

 

Got that?

Mr. Olmstead's position, and that of the Age of Autism blog is that autism does not cause criminal behavior.

 

So even though Mr. Olmstead's position is that vaccines can cause autism, he is not saying ANYWHERE that vaccines caused the Newtown (you might want to check your spelling) massacre.

 

Please note that at least two independent adults report that Adam Lanza had symptoms consistent with severe sensory processing disorder.  Please also note that sensory processing disorders is observed in most autistic children: http://www.sinetwork.org/pdf/tomcheck_dunn.pdf

 

But nice try, twisting and distorting the truth in an attempt to vilify the authors of a book that contains exactly the PROOF you asked for, PROOF that thimerosal in the amount found in vaccines cause harm.  

03-11-2013 11:47 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


Yeah I really shouldn't spend so much time on it. I agree. smile.gif it's become my "break" at work. Not really healthy. Still I have much lower post counts than some. smile.gif

Wow you must have a very long break orngbiggrin.gif

03-11-2013 11:45 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Hmm - well despite what you think about me (and I meant I read books to relax - bit different to my internet habit!) I did spend a couple minutes researching the book you recommend. 

 

So I found their blog, and I kid you not they suggest the Newton massacre was caused by vaccination (indirectly, but still). That's about as low as it gets for me: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/weekly-wrap-lanza-newtown-autism.html

 

Not convincing me it's worth my money or time.... 

At least your response was predictable winky.gif

03-11-2013 11:37 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


That's not at all what I said. But interesting to see that's how you interpret it. Of course there are rare cases of vaccine harm. 0.0001% of vaccines even end up being compensated for harm (see top of thread).

And of course I've seen what's posted here as evidence of significant harm. Just saying when it comes to thimerosol specifically I don't find any if it convincing. smile.gif

And I'm happy to point out flaws in any specific evidence you think does show harm from thimerosol. smile.gif

Just to be clear are you saying that you believe that only cases that have been compensated in vaccine court are actual cases of harm and no other person has ever suffered harm from a vaccine because it hasn't been compensated in vaccine court? 

03-11-2013 11:21 AM
pek64
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Yeah I really shouldn't spend so much time on it. I agree. smile.gif it's become my "break" at work. Not really healthy. Still I have much lower post counts than some. smile.gif

Lower than me, that's for sure. I post in other forums, besides vax. I assumed you were a SAHM. You shouldn't jepardize your job, though. I'm surprised that with all you have to do what people think about vaccinations is so important to you. I can't imagine worrying about other people's choices if I worked full time. But that's me.
03-11-2013 11:19 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I prefer not to give money to spreaders of misinformation personally.

 

Nice, how you assert that they are spreading misinformation, even though you didn't bother to read their book, or look up their references.  You have no way of knowing whether or not they are correct.

 

How very...scientific of you.

03-11-2013 11:00 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Not to join in an attack, but you do post a lot. How do you find the time with a full time job, and two children?

Yeah I really shouldn't spend so much time on it. I agree. smile.gif it's become my "break" at work. Not really healthy. Still I have much lower post counts than some. smile.gif
03-11-2013 10:57 AM
pek64
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Hmm - maybe I'll look for a second hand one. I prefer not to give money to spreaders of misinformation personally. Apart from that it's not so much the money outlay as the time (despite Taxi continually hinting I'm a pharma shill paid to do this, this really is a hobby for me in addition to a full time job as a scientist, and two young children). I read to relax, not to get stressed out more about lies and misinformation. 

But I suppose there's an argument for "know your enemy" so I'll think about it. Not going to be quick though. 

PS. You did all read the part where I agreed pharmaceutical companies are reprehensible right - it's not like I think they're run by kittens knitting hats for preemie babies and making cookies or anything. I agree they're horrible, and they have more power (especially in the US) than I'd like. Doesn't immediately mean that all vaccines are some mass conspiracy just to make money off stupid people though. No more than all drugs are a waste of time. Sadly we need big co-orporations to make these complex drugs, so we live with the downsides and up the legislation to keep them honest. That's what I think is working (ish) for vaccines. And I don't think crying "foul" in a loud voice at any possible moment helps the process at all.... I think it just makes everyone more defensive and less likely to admit problems quickly. I think it harms children - both by keeping them from vaccines which might help save them from a nasty VPD, but also actually by potentially slowing down the process of finding any real reactions that may exist. 


Not to join in an attack, but you do post a lot. How do you find the time with a full time job, and two children?
03-11-2013 10:19 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Serenbat - what is your first language? I'm really curious, and it might help me to read your posts more easily. :) (supposed to be a happy reassuring smile, not a snarky smile). 

I completely understand it is much easier for you to deflect verses answering them. Guess my questions were too difficult. 

03-11-2013 10:09 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Hmm - well despite what you think about me (and I meant I read books to relax - bit different to my internet habit!) I did spend a couple minutes researching the book you recommend. 

 

So I found their blog, and I kid you not they suggest the Newton massacre was caused by vaccination (indirectly, but still). That's about as low as it gets for me: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/weekly-wrap-lanza-newtown-autism.html

 

Not convincing me it's worth my money or time.... 

 

Not surprised you bottled out, it was quite the challenge. 

 

 

 

Marnica:
Please do not throw out the tired argument that this book is crap because the authors are Olmstead and Blaxill. This book is VERY well referenced and you can easily chase down each and every reference for yourself. 

 

 

QED

 

03-11-2013 10:03 AM
prosciencemum

Serenbat - what is your first language? I'm really curious, and it might help me to read your posts more easily. :) (supposed to be a happy reassuring smile, not a snarky smile). 

03-11-2013 10:01 AM
prosciencemum

Hmm - well despite what you think about me (and I meant I read books to relax - bit different to my internet habit!) I did spend a couple minutes researching the book you recommend. 

 

So I found their blog, and I kid you not they suggest the Newton massacre was caused by vaccination (indirectly, but still). That's about as low as it gets for me: http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/weekly-wrap-lanza-newtown-autism.html

 

Not convincing me it's worth my money or time.... 

03-11-2013 09:47 AM
serenbat
Quote:
 I read to relax, not to get stressed out more about lies and misinformation. 

Does this mean you just post stuff, forwarded pro vac stuff?

 

With science and all the stuff that comes along with it, like information from various source, are we to "assume" you don't research and read like most of us? 

 

How do you personally get only one side information and are sure they (meaning those who you use as your source) are not receiving misinformation? Would you even know?

03-11-2013 09:00 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Hmm - maybe I'll look for a second hand one. I prefer not to give money to spreaders of misinformation personally. Apart from that it's not so much the money outlay as the time (despite Taxi continually hinting I'm a pharma shill paid to do this, this really is a hobby for me in addition to a full time job as a scientist, and two young children). I read to relax, not to get stressed out more about lies and misinformation. 

 

But I suppose there's an argument for "know your enemy" so I'll think about it. Not going to be quick though. 

 

PS. You did all read the part where I agreed pharmaceutical companies are reprehensible right - it's not like I think they're run by kittens knitting hats for preemie babies and making cookies or anything. I agree they're horrible, and they have more power (especially in the US) than I'd like. Doesn't immediately mean that all vaccines are some mass conspiracy just to make money off stupid people though. No more than all drugs are a waste of time. Sadly we need big co-orporations to make these complex drugs, so we live with the downsides and up the legislation to keep them honest. That's what I think is working (ish) for vaccines. And I don't think crying "foul" in a loud voice at any possible moment helps the process at all.... I think it just makes everyone more defensive and less likely to admit problems quickly. I think it harms children - both by keeping them from vaccines which might help save them from a nasty VPD, but also actually by potentially slowing down the process of finding any real reactions that may exist. 

 

 

PSM, you really have just highlighted why a debate with you and those like you is impossible. It is admirable, that people like Taxi and Marnica even bother.

03-11-2013 08:53 AM
prosciencemum

Hmm - maybe I'll look for a second hand one. I prefer not to give money to spreaders of misinformation personally. Apart from that it's not so much the money outlay as the time (despite Taxi continually hinting I'm a pharma shill paid to do this, this really is a hobby for me in addition to a full time job as a scientist, and two young children). I read to relax, not to get stressed out more about lies and misinformation. 

 

But I suppose there's an argument for "know your enemy" so I'll think about it. Not going to be quick though. 

 

PS. You did all read the part where I agreed pharmaceutical companies are reprehensible right - it's not like I think they're run by kittens knitting hats for preemie babies and making cookies or anything. I agree they're horrible, and they have more power (especially in the US) than I'd like. Doesn't immediately mean that all vaccines are some mass conspiracy just to make money off stupid people though. No more than all drugs are a waste of time. Sadly we need big co-orporations to make these complex drugs, so we live with the downsides and up the legislation to keep them honest. That's what I think is working (ish) for vaccines. And I don't think crying "foul" in a loud voice at any possible moment helps the process at all.... I think it just makes everyone more defensive and less likely to admit problems quickly. I think it harms children - both by keeping them from vaccines which might help save them from a nasty VPD, but also actually by potentially slowing down the process of finding any real reactions that may exist. 

03-11-2013 07:18 AM
Mirzam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Read this book and then come back and lets talk

 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15548684?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem

 

Please do not throw out the tired argument that this book is crap because the authors are Olmstead and Blaxill. This book is VERY well referenced and you can easily chase down each and every reference for yourself. 

 

Really PSM put your 14 bucks where your mouth is and read this book with an open mind. I'm not holding breath that you will however I am looking forward to the excuse you will put forth about why you can't or won't read it. 

 

I am going to make it even easier for PSM, here is the book on Amazon UK for under 4 pounds.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Age-Autism-Medicine-Man-Made/dp/0312545622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363011345&sr=8-1

03-11-2013 07:07 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Show me something you take as evidence of harm and I'll be happy to talk about what I see as the flaws with it.

Read this book and then come back and lets talk

 

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15548684?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227000000000&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=&wl3=21486607510&wl4=&wl5=pla&veh=sem

 

Please do not throw out the tired argument that this book is crap because the authors are Olmstead and Blaxill. This book is VERY well referenced and you can easily chase down each and every reference for yourself. 

 

Really PSM put your 14 bucks where your mouth is and read this book with an open mind. I'm not holding breath that you will however I am looking forward to the excuse you will put forth about why you can't or won't read it. 

03-11-2013 06:57 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I think it's quite clear pharmaceutical companies (especially in their US based dealings) are totally reprehensible. I suspect they have a lot less power than many people seem to assume though.

Particularly I'd they're trying to get scientists to do what they want. Might as well try to herd cats! The only thing that's sure in a room full of scientists is that they'll enjoy a vigorous debate, and would love to disprove the status quo.

Sure the industries tried to hold back recognition of the harm of thalidomide and smoking (and other examples). Thing is they failed....

Sadly for vaccines (and other life saving medicines) we have no choice but to deal with them. There's really no way to make them otherwise. But we place numerous checks in place to prevent them from cutting corners on safety. Perhaps we need more....

What would convince you? Could anything?

I haven't had a laugh this hard in a while. Thanks!!!!!! ROTFLMAO.gif

 

The pharmaceutical industry is Washington's largest and most powerful lobby. 

03-11-2013 06:44 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's no point in going round and round with people who think there's a conspiracy to defraud the public. Any evidence or lack thereof is just declared part I the conspiracy. Pointless.

I agree - except there is no point in going around and around with people who refuse to acknowledge that there may be things that are being hidden from the public by the government and public health officials.  Pointless

03-11-2013 06:16 AM
Taximom5

Wow, prosciencemum, you say that you have never seen any evidence of harm from thimerosal in the amount in vaccines.  I posted evidence.  You ignored it, but posted....a Wikipedia article written by a shill for the vaccine companies?  

 

Here, in case you somehow missed it, is just some of the evidence.  Again.

 

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240802246458

 

Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry

Volume 91Issue 4, 2009

 

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds

And, from the TRANSCRIPT of the Simpsonwood meeting (so, no, you can't pretend that this is just a conspiracy theory):

 

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40-41:  “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes.  First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code.  Exposure at three months of age, Tics.  Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder.  Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.

 

Dr. Weil, pg. 207 - the man representing the American Academy of Pediatrics [the very organization that helped to set guidelines for vaccine policy - the organization said to be "dedicated to the health of all children"]:  "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant.  You can play with this all you want.  They are linear.  They are statistically significant.

03-11-2013 05:52 AM
serenbat

twins.gif once again you just try and go off topic and provide no proof of what you are saying ROTFLMAO.gifthis assumption that you just want to blame anti vacers is a joke - you have nothing to offer blowkiss.gif

03-11-2013 05:28 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

so being in the UK and feeling the way you do- you must have been crushed that your child's vacs didn't contain thimerosal- where you able to seek some out so you child got a doses?

 

IRL are you lobbing to have thimerosal put back into the vac in your country or do you just spend time spouting the need here? I would think with your fervent support and the support of the masses that feel like you do, it should be put back in-no?

 

 

 

 

Um no. I'm just pointing out that there's no clear evidence it's dangerous, so if thimerosol were in vaccines I would not be concerned. It's not in any of the paediatric vaccines in the US either (since 2000). I don't think it's dangerous (in the western world with good vaccine storage practices) to have it not present. But the situation is very different in remote parts of rural Africa (and elsewhere). 

 

 

 

Quote:
still waiting for my answers chickabiddy and prosciencemom and Rrrrrachel if you want to tell me what dangers exist please spell them out-proof is always nice (I keep hearing so few- what exactly are they?) and since they are so safe- what would need to be done to make them SAFER? something?nothing? what?
 
Are you admitting there are dangers to vacs?

 

All medicines have the potential for side effects. I do not deny that vaccine reactions can occur and that (rarely) they can be serious. I agree with the PP that on balance the diseases are still more dangerous though.

 

 

 

Quote:
you seem to be saying (and please clear this up) NOT vaccinating is the GREATER risk YET you say you favor making vaxes "safer" at the same time saying there is RISK to vaccing too-correct?------so what is the "making safer" you are referring too mean? How are they NOT safe?

 

Maybe an analogy would help you understand. I am going to start with the assumption that you understand that things can have different levels of risk. Like crossing the street. It's dangerous - some people die daily doing it, but it's possible to do it without harm. We can make it safer - teach people how to look for dangers (ie. risk factors for vaccine reactions, like egg allergies for example), we can monitor the safety to uncover particularly risky bits of the street (or vaccines), and we can continue to improve the safety with better street lighting, cross walks etc. 

 

So why is it hard to understand that lots of people conclude that while vaccines do contain some risk, it's a lower risk that the risk from the disease they protect against. And meanwhile we want to keep reducing the risk from vaccines as much as possible - who on Earth wouldn't be in favour of that? 

 

I actually think the anti-vaccination movement is doing much more harm than good to wider public knowledge of potential harms from vaccines. By jumping on any tiny admission in a "a ha so you admit it's dangerous, let's ban all vaccines" kind of way, I think they push the health industry to down play more and more any real risks. If instead people could engage calmly with the discussion of the pros and cons of vaccination I suspect there's be much more admission from mainstream locations about potential downsides, and perhaps even less pushing of the pros too (like what I will admit I think is an overplaying of the efficacy of the flu vaccine in the US, which I suspect in the long run is also going to be damaging to vaccination programmes too). 

03-11-2013 04:47 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Just saying when it comes to thimerosol specifically I don't find any if it convincing. smile.gif

And I'm happy to point out flaws in any specific evidence you think does show harm from thimerosol. smile.gif

so being in the UK and feeling the way you do- you must have been crushed that your child's vacs didn't contain thimerosal- where you able to seek some out so you child got a doses?

 

IRL are you lobbing to have thimerosal put back into the vac in your country or do you just spend time spouting the need here? I would think with your fervent support and the support of the masses that feel like you do, it should be put back in-no?

 

Maybe this county could have vacers start to lobby to have it put back in here as well-I'm sure so many would be in favor of it.       Poll?   letter writing? demand must be there 

I am talking about where it has been removed from and that so many.ROTFLMAO.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bag.gif still waiting for my answers chickabiddy and prosciencemom and Rrrrrachel if you want to tell me what dangers exist please spell them out-proof is always nice (I keep hearing so few- what exactly are they?) and since they are so safe- what would need to be done to make them SAFER? something?nothing? what?

 

 Quote:

I don't believe they are as dangerous as some other people believe they are.

Are you admitting there are dangers to vacs?

 

Quote:

Did you not read or understand my post where I stated that I acknowledged that there are risks to vaccines?  It's post #194.  However, just in case you missed it, I'll say it again.  There are risks to vaccines.

NO I don't understand what you mean?

 

 

IF they (vacs) are as you state, as dangerous- what does dangerous/danger mean to you?

 

Where would your risks come from? 

 

 

 

and please help me here too- 

 

Quote:
I am entirely in favor of making vaxes safer.  All for it!

 

 

Quote:
I believe, based on the available evidence, that there are GREATER risks, both individually and societally, to remaining unvaccinated.

you seem to be saying (and please clear this up) NOT vaccinating is the GREATER risk YET you say you favor making vaxes "safer" at the same time saying there is RISK to vaccing too-correct?------so what is the "making safer" you are referring too mean? How are they NOT safe?

 

 

whistling.gifsmile!

03-11-2013 04:12 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post


That's not at all what I said. But interesting to see that's how you interpret it. Of course there are rare cases of vaccine harm. 0.0001% of vaccines even end up being compensated for harm (see top of thread).
 

Oops - I'm mixing up threads. The percentage actually under discussion in this thread: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1374558/99-999-of-children-have-no-serious-side-effects-from-vaccines

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