Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Fun thread for a change! Anyone up for a meme-off? 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)
11-05-2013 12:46 PM
Turquesa No, I get your point. I'm just concerned that you don't get mine. Until the government is *forcing* you either to take supplements or to go explain yourself to unelected bureaucrats for an exemption, you simply cannot place the two examples on the same playing field.
11-03-2013 09:37 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

"For it to be a conflict of interest there has to be two competing interests *at the same time*. "

I would disagree. There are infamous cases of revolving doors between government and industry, (look no further than Julie Geberding), that I find particularly damning for COIs.

In any case, you’re overlooking my main point. Namely, by lumping Mike Adams in with Paul Offit putting his own vaccine on the vaccination schedule, you’ve created a false analogy.

 

The point is that there are conflicts of interest on both sides, which you seem to have no problem justifying.  Herbs and supplements are a multi billion dollar a year industry. Pharmaceutical companies wish they could make as much on vaccines as the supplement industry makes on vitamins per year. 

 

Have you ever heard of the Diet Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA)? If that's not sketchy legislation then I don't know what is.  Basically, it's not up to the manufacturer to prove a product is safe and effective, it's up to the FDA to prove that it isn't safe.  There is virtually no testing and no adverse event reporting system. There is no way to know whether or not a product actually has what it's labeled to have. 

 

Now before you start with the whole "but vitamins and supplements are harmless!" argument, let me show you some examples.  Just a few weeks ago a supplement was found to be responsible for causing 48 cases of hepatitis.  Two people needed liver transplants, and one died.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6240a1.htm 

 

Then there's the case of kava. This is what the  Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database  has to say about it "There are at least 68 reported cases of liver toxicity following kava use. The use of kava for as little as one to three months has resulted in the need for liver transplants, and even death. Kava has been banned from the market in Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and several other countries are considering similar action. Some patients may be more at risk than others. Patients who are “poor metabolizers” might be at greatest risk, but this has not been verified. Until more is known, tell patients to avoid kava. Recommend routine liver function tests for patients who continue to use kava." 

 

Aristolochia has been linked to liver failure and cancer and was eventually banned by the FDA.  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-04-07/do-herbal-remedies-work/54102616/1

 

We can't forget about the ironic case of Gary Null who was poisoned and sickened by his *own* supplement and nearly died because there was over 1,000 times the amount of vitamin D in the dosage than what was reported on the box. 

 

 

I also think it's important to mention the ironic fact that big pharma companies like GlaxoSmithKline make a huge percentage of supplements and vitamins you see in stores. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/10/many-vitamins-supplements-made-by-big-pharmaceutical-companies/

 

The point is, if you really care about safety and testing and only buying things that don't use huge COI legislations to show a product is safe and effectve, you wouldn't take supplements. 

11-02-2013 05:17 PM
Turquesa "For it to be a conflict of interest there has to be two competing interests *at the same time*. "

I would disagree. There are infamous cases of revolving doors between government and industry, (look no further than Julie Geberding), that I find particularly damning for COIs.

In any case, you’re overlooking my main point. Namely, by lumping Mike Adams in with Paul Offit putting his own vaccine on the vaccination schedule, you’ve created a false analogy.
11-02-2013 09:09 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

ACIP's COI statement came largely as a result of Offit sitting on the Committee and basically rubber-stamping his own vaccine. So right there you have it.

But COI's involve a lot more than working *for* pharma.

It would be my hope that since Offit's time, ACIP would be COI-free. But alas, here are the current members. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/members.html

I haven't cross-referenced every last member, but here are a couple in pharma's pockets. Maybe it's vaccine-related, maybe not. But I wouldn't think that Merck, et al, would want to contribute to anyone who said something negative about their products.

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=tamera+coyne&state[id]=&services[]=&period[]=
http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=harrison+lee&state[id]=39&services[]=&period[]=

Either ACIP has a tightly wound definition of COI, or someone's been asleep at the switch.

I'm itching to post some other memes, but CM mentioned in another thread not to do so. I'll await clarification on that.

 

For it to be a conflict of interest there has to be two competing interests *at the same time*. 

 

Lee Harrison, for example, didn't join the ACIP until 7/01/2012.  His last payments were in 2012, but the months aren't listed.  They magically stopped after 2012 and since this isn't hidden information, it's logical to assume that the payments occurred before 7/01.  The same goes for Tamera Beasley.  She joined on 10/04/2010.  Once again, her last payments occurred in 2010, but the dates aren't listed. They also magically stopped after 2010 when she joined the ACIP. So most likely, they occurred before 10/04.
 

11-01-2013 02:52 PM
Turquesa ACIP's COI statement came largely as a result of Offit sitting on the Committee and basically rubber-stamping his own vaccine. So right there you have it.

But COI's involve a lot more than working *for* pharma.

It would be my hope that since Offit's time, ACIP would be COI-free. But alas, here are the current members. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/committee/members.html

I haven't cross-referenced every last member, but here are a couple in pharma's pockets. Maybe it's vaccine-related, maybe not. But I wouldn't think that Merck, et al, would want to contribute to anyone who said something negative about their products.

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=tamera+coyne&state[id]=&services[]=&period[]=
http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=harrison+lee&state[id]=39&services[]=&period[]=

Either ACIP has a tightly wound definition of COI, or someone's been asleep at the switch.

I'm itching to post some other memes, but CM mentioned in another thread not to do so. I'll await clarification on that.
10-30-2013 08:09 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Tea, does Mike Adams sit on a government panel that determines which medical interventions will end up on a schedule, get dangled in front of states with monetary enticements for their health departments, and end up mandated on my children?'Does Meryl Dorsey researcha and rubber stamp these products as they clear lickety split through the FDA? None of the people you named are tied to research and government policy-making? Excuse me, but you cannot begin to compare spokespeople for a minute subculture to those who mandate medical interventions on a mass scale.

 

Do you have any evidence that any members of the ACIP work for Big Pharma?  Because they have a very detailed and strict COI policy that forbids it and I am sure they would like to know.   Here is part of their policy: 

 

"People with specific vaccine-related interests at the time of application are not considered for appointment to the Committee. Examples of such interests include direct employment of the candidate or an immediate family member by a vaccine manufacturer or its parent company, serving on a board of a vaccine manufacturer, and holding a patent on a vaccine or related product. Potential ACIP members are asked before submission of their names for final selection to recuse themselves during the term of membership from activities that are, or could be construed as, conflicts of interest. These activities include provision of advisory or consulting services to a vaccine manufacturer or its parent company and acceptance of honoraria or travel reimbursement from a vaccine manufacturer. Once accepted for membership, ACIP members are required every year to file confidential financial reports with the Office of Government Ethics and to disclose publicly all vaccine-related interests and work, including participation in clinical trials, at each meeting."  http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=744177

 

Yes, it is very clear that the only COI you care about are the ones from the side you don't like. COI on the Anti Vaccine side is somehow OK.  Well, it's not. Parents on the fence or parents trying to research vaccines go to these sites and think because they see the word "doctor" that they are getting accurate, science based, unbiased information. They are NOT.  Many of these doctors have made themselves multi millionaires by convincing parents that vaccines are dangerous or that their child is vaccine damaged  and oh hey! It's ok though, I can help your child! Just click on the link on my page to buy all these herbs and suppliments! They only cost about 1,000 a month, but it's for the health and safety of your child so it's worth it! Plus, buy my book! And don't forget to click the donate button at the top of my page and maybe buy some of the DVDs I sell too!  

10-29-2013 08:56 PM
Turquesa By the way, I'm no Mercola fan,but that meme always creeped me out. Someone flying over the Offit estate for a photo would get pegged for stalking him..unless they were from Google. lol.gif Is there any confirmation that that is, indeed, the Mercola mansion? It might me, but lots and lots and lots of meme "info" ends up on Snopes.
10-29-2013 08:51 PM
Turquesa Tea, does Mike Adams sit on a government panel that determines which medical interventions will end up on a schedule, get dangled in front of states with monetary enticements for their health departments, and end up mandated on my children?'Does Meryl Dorsey researcha and rubber stamp these products as they clear lickety split through the FDA? None of the people you named are tied to research and government policy-making? Excuse me, but you cannot begin to compare spokespeople for a minute subculture to those who mandate medical interventions on a mass scale.
10-29-2013 03:51 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonjagrabel View Post
 

Regarding the original post:

 

Tetanus - the box on the left (1923) is how many people CONTRACTED Tetanus.  The one on the right (present day) is how many people DIE from Tetanus.  Can't compare apples to oranges. . .

 

Really? Because this is what the CDC says " From 1922-1926, there were an estimated 1,314 cases of tetanus per year in the U.S. In the late 1940's, the tetanus vaccine was introduced, and tetanus became a disease that was officially counted and tracked by public health officials. In 2000, only 41 cases of tetanus were reported in the U.S." 

 

This is CDC surveillance from 2001-2008 "During 2001--2008, a total of 233 cases were reported from 45 states; 26 (13.2%) of 197 cases for which outcome was reported were fatal. A total of 120 cases (51.5%) were reported from five states: California (60), Florida (25), Texas (12), New York (12), and Pennsylvania (11). An average of 29 cases was reported each year (range: 19--40). " http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6012a1.htm

 

"From 2000-2007 an average of 31 cases were reported per year.  Almost all cases of tetanus are in people who have never been vaccinated, or who completed their childhood series, but did not have a booster dose in the preceding 10 years"  http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4220.pdf

 

So if tetanus is fatal in 20 percent of cases, that would mean that 130 people contracted tetanus in 2011 alone.  That would be an extremely high number and not the average at all.  Where is your source for this? 

10-29-2013 03:25 PM
Songy

Regarding the original post:

 

Tetanus - the box on the left (1923) is how many people CONTRACTED Tetanus.  The one on the right (present day) is how many people DIE from Tetanus.  Can't compare apples to oranges. . .

10-29-2013 01:35 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

I just heard Paul Offit say that he had Measles, Mumps, Varicella & Rubella, so he rivals Dr. Tenpenny stats in the Meme above.

And yeah, this thread bites because I just feel it became unbalanced too early & now it just feels mean spirited & unfun. Yawn, can't be bothered really.

 

Of course he did. He was born in 1951. There was no vaccine against measles or chickenpox etc.  Virtually every kid got them. The difference is that he actually wants to prevent other kids from having to go through them.  He also spent weeks in the Polio ward of a hospital when he was a child because of surgery he had for a club foot. How many kids in polio wards have you seen lately? He knows what these diseases can do.

 

Almost missing the entire third grade due to illness is hardly a good thing. And it certainly doesn't make a case for her unvaccinated superior health...

10-29-2013 01:23 PM
dinahx We know where RtAVM is online. It is feeling very not 'fair use'. I know it is exciting for pro-Vax'ers to finally have some sexy memes but we don't need them all reposted on MDC.
10-29-2013 01:21 PM
dinahx I just heard Paul Offit say that he had Measles, Mumps, Varicella & Rubella, so he rivals Dr. Tenpenny stats in the Meme above.

And yeah, this thread bites because I just feel it became unbalanced too early & now it just feels mean spirited & unfun. Yawn, can't be bothered really.
10-29-2013 11:48 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 

Sort of a blurry eyesore, but relevant.

 

I can barely read it but I assume it has to do with COI.  Here's my rebuttal! 

 

 

 

10-29-2013 11:35 AM
Turquesa

Sort of a blurry eyesore, but relevant.

10-29-2013 11:27 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
 

You stated in your original post you just wanted to ligthen things up but to be nice. These are just mocking and ridiculous. Maybe you should play by your own rules.

 

Well I actually said no personal attacks. And trust me, there are a lot of memes (on both sides) that are really insulting.  I also said to not take things too seriously ;)   But if they offend you I will take them down. The dinosaur one is fine, I think.   

 

There has to be a site or something where there are AV memes right? I'd be fun to see some...

 

Edit: Ok I removed them. 

10-29-2013 11:19 AM
Turquesa

There's actually a great blog post rebutting this meme. http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2012/09/lying-to-obtain-religious-vaccine.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

Dinahx- I understand your sentiment, it is how I feel whenever I come here to learn more (which is only partly the point of this thread, I thinki the goal was to lighten things up a bit?)

So here's one to make you feel better, there were a bunch of other ones that were funnier but since I disagree it felt dishonest to post it, at least this one only bothers me in a public health way but I believe in autonomy and shared decision making etc so I don't totally object-

10-29-2013 11:18 AM
Marnica
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 

You stated in your original post you just wanted to ligthen things up but to be nice. These are just mocking and ridiculous. Maybe you should play by your own rules.

10-29-2013 10:02 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

Does this prove small class size causes better reading scores?  No,it does not.

 

Does it show that perhaps we should look into the possible relationship between class size and mean reading score?  Yes it does.

maybe only if both classes ate the same diet and had no sexual abuse? :rotflmao

10-29-2013 08:20 AM
kathymuggle

 

Does this prove small class size causes better reading scores?  No,it does not.

 

Does it show that perhaps we should look into the possible relationship between class size and mean reading score?  Yes it does.

10-29-2013 08:08 AM
kathymuggle

 

A significant correlation

10-29-2013 07:30 AM
teacozy

10-29-2013 07:00 AM
kathymuggle

 not a meme, but a blog post:

 

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/01/lack-of-correlation-does-not-show-lack.html

 

Correlation is not causation…but it is not necessarily nothing, either.  

 

"... In academia's greatest charade, every Stats 101 class or Epidemiology 101 class or heck even a Psych 101 class will emphatically declare that correlation does not imply causation.  Then most people graduate and spend their entire lives reading causation into correlations.  Especially if they become epidemiologists.

 
Observational studies are entirely legitimate forms of evidence, and correlations are entirely useful statistics.  No one can question this.  However, these correlations simply show arelationship and tell us nothing about the explanation of that relationship.  
 
This doesn't change just because an explanation is biologically plausible.  Nothing ever changes it.  A correlation raises the possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship, but no more or less than it raises the possibility of a non-causal relationship.  "
10-29-2013 06:50 AM
pattimomma

 

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 95

10-29-2013 05:03 AM
teacozy

Just saw this and couldn't resist. 

 

10-27-2013 02:31 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post

Kathymuggles- Off topic- and maybe everyone already knows this- but the delay with Tylenol warning labels and dosing changes etc was similarly shockingly slow, making me think it is either universal, or only that slow for really dangerous meds? Anyways, I love This American Life and they did a great piece on it

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/505/use-only-as-directed
 

 It took me a bit of time to get around to reading the link (and the links contained within the links) but it covered some info I did not know.  Very good read - thanks.

10-27-2013 10:59 AM
Ratchet Use of the ED is associated with a lot of things, but only minimally so with health status, to be honest.
10-27-2013 10:57 AM
Ratchet Dinahx- I understand your sentiment, it is how I feel whenever I come here to learn more (which is only partly the point of this thread, I thinki the goal was to lighten things up a bit?)

So here's one to make you feel better, there were a bunch of other ones that were funnier but since I disagree it felt dishonest to post it, at least this one only bothers me in a public health way but I believe in autonomy and shared decision making etc so I don't totally object-

10-27-2013 10:52 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Did I use a non-vax site or mention a non-vax site interpretation?  No, I did not. Not sure what you are on about there. 

 

People should post to the study, as I did, and not use AoA or Skeptical raptor if they can help it.  

 

I disagree with your interpretation on the study. Not surprising.  You cherry picked one quote, I cherry picked another…so, yes people should read the study to see what they get from it.  I would urge people to look at the the unvaxxed by parental choice versus undervaxxed because their parents were late, lacked resources to get them vaccines in a timely manner - as they are two very different demographics.  

 

Call my crazy, but I think that the co author of the study who also happens to be an epidemiologist at the Institute for Health Research probably has a better understanding of the study than anyone here does.  

 

" I would urge people to look at the the unvaxxed by parental choice versus undervaxxed because their parents were late, lacked resources to get them vaccines in a timely manner - as they are two very different demographics." 

 

Glanz also addressed this. Parents who purposefully choose not to vaccinate are probably less likely to seek standard medical care. Which makes sense doesn't it?  Also, the fact that children who were undervaccinated due to parental choice vs ones who were undervaccinated due to lack of resources were also less likely to go to the hospital/use out patient services actually demonstrates that the lack of vaccines themselves have nothing to do with it.  It has to do with other socioeconomic/cultural factors.  Which is why the intention of the study wasn't to determine which children were healthier between fully vaccinated and partially vaccinated kids. The only thing they controlled for was age and sex.  Clearly you can't determine that with such limitations. 

10-27-2013 10:39 AM
kathymuggle

Got the full study - this is what they said on those undervaccinated by choice/parental refusal:

 

"Children who were undervaccinated because of paren- tal choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED and outpatient settings—both overall and for spe- cific acute illnesses—than children who were vacci- nated on time (Table 5). The IRRs for these associa- tions ranged from 0.88 to 0.94 and were statistically significant (P 􏰀 .001). The IRR for inpatient admission rates was not statistically significant (IRR = 0.98; P = .50)."

 

http://www.commed.vcu.edu/IntroPH/Communicable_Disease/2013/undervaccn_USA.pdf

 

ED - emergency department

 

 

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