Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: The Daily Show: Liberal "Idiocy" on Vaccines 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)
06-09-2014 10:30 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
That blogger Sarah Pope agrees with Offit about "more parents...":

- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c....jRMRAMIL.dpuf
Well, then, both are wrong.

WHO stats:

http://apps.who.int/immunization_mon...overages?c=USA

Offitt, a vaccine "expert" getting it wrong is worse than a blogger getting it wrong. Offitt is meant to be looked on as an authority while she is not.
06-09-2014 09:42 AM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Getting back to the show, was anyone else bothered by Offit's misinformation? That crap about "more and more parents" and "exemption levels are rising" is really grating on me, especially where vaccination rates are high, steady, and rarely falling below CDC goals.

New York State has some of the toughest vaccine laws and lowest exemption numbers. And yet measles, mumps, and pertussis keep rearing their heads there. Samantha Bee's implication that NYS was some hotbed for non-vaccination also bugged me.
That blogger Sarah Pope agrees with Offit about "more parents...":

Quote:
With vaccination rates continuing to fall each and every year as more parents delay or forgo shots entirely for their children, authorities are blaming unvaccinated children for putting the population at large at risk or worse, for outbreaks themselves.
- See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c....jRMRAMIL.dpuf
06-08-2014 09:33 PM
Turquesa Getting back to the show, was anyone else bothered by Offit's misinformation? That crap about "more and more parents" and "exemption levels are rising" is really grating on me, especially where vaccination rates are high, steady, and rarely falling below CDC goals.

New York State has some of the toughest vaccine laws and lowest exemption numbers. And yet measles, mumps, and pertussis keep rearing their heads there. Samantha Bee's implication that NYS was some hotbed for non-vaccination also bugged me.
06-08-2014 11:34 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Science is not a belief system. But scientism and positivism certainly are. You are not asking me to accept scientific findings. You are asking me to place my faith in certain individual, fallible scientists based on a logical fallacy ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html ) and a made-up number, 99.9%.
I see the 99.9% never got backed up with any of those "pesky" facts

I also see that there doesn't appear to be a 99.9% (or any for that matter) report that shows that many "scientist" say vaccines are natural, yet the PRO side pushes it all the time as a fact.

Facts only seem to matter a minuscule percentage of the time!
06-08-2014 11:31 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....
so glad you are SURE they won't reverse their stance on vaccines like other medical recommendations of the past---odd how "other things" can be but not when it comes to vaccines
06-08-2014 11:28 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
There's another way to make things better ...

Hold the vax manufacturers liable for the safety of their products - just like any other consumer products, medical or otherwise.
they are just so NATURAL, why confuse them with meds and accountability!

remember supplements = BAD
vaccines ARE natural = all is GOOD!
06-08-2014 11:26 AM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Sure I agree it's frustrating. But I don't see how we can do better than the best advice that's out there.
so let's just give up!
And there have been people claiming vaccines are unnatural and dangerous since they were first introduced. Anti vaccination views are very far from new.

When serious issues have been found, or even just when the balance of risk benefit become unacceptable (eg polio OPV) recommendations change. This is incredibly reassuring to me.

ah, it is so frustrating to see people who claim vaccines ARE natural!

claiming they are "natural" and pushing the propaganda that they are is A REAL PROBLEM-IMO roll
06-08-2014 10:52 AM
MamaMunchkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.
Scientific truths are - not - established by voting.
06-08-2014 08:27 AM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
I think it was a mixed bag at best.

If there were any viewers who bothered to look up Sarah's blog, or "herd immunity," and actually read some of the "other side," then that would be a win. Judging by some of the comments on Sarah's blog from even provaxxers who nonetheless admitted grudging respect for her position, there were actually people who did bother to look things up.

But let's face facts, that's not the most likely scenario.

I've seen a number of pro-vax people on FaceBook post this, apparently secure in their knowledge that this gave a shining example of "anti-vax idiocy." They certainly didn't bother to look up Offit's financial conflicts of interest, or challenges to the theory of herd immunity, not to mention the fact that Offit's points were completely untrue.

The more typical viewers saw only Paul Offit labeled as "expert immunologist," and Sarah labeled as "anti-science idiot" who swore that no matter how many scientists told her she was wrong, she wouldn't change her mind, i. And that makes it a loss. Unless you really knew what was going on, he came off as the expert scientist, and she came off as an actress paid to look like an idiot. All it did for the vast unthinking hordes was to reinforce the propaganda.
I'm unfortunately inclined to agree. I understand wanting to seize the opportunity for an appearance on national T.V., but I'm not sure that this was a wise way to go about it. A full-on serious interview with Stewart would have been better. Even then, I'm not sure that Sarah Pope would have been the best candidate to reach out to the mainstream. I mean no offense when I say that statements like "herd immunity is a myth" will sound fanatical to Joe and Jane America. I'm not saying that Pope has zero credibility. But somebody more middle-of-the-road like Jennifer Margulis would be a better choice.
06-08-2014 08:23 AM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method.
Exactly. You want me to comply with the vaccination schedule based on faith and not on science. You and Tea have made it quite clear that I'm in no position to vaccinate fully based on any understanding of science. I'm not an expert, after all.

This is unfortunate. I trusted every doctor who routinely and compulsively prescribed antibiotics for every last cold and ear infection. Look at the Pandora's box that they have now opened.

Of course, doctors are not scientists.

[/QUOTE] Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of.

History simplifies science into a story of great discoveries by great men (and more rarely women). Scientists today don't recognise that as the process we work in. We all contribute small steps in a gradual accumulation of knowledge.

That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.[/QUOTE]

Can you provide supporting evidence for any of these generalizations? I evaluate science based on its own merit, not on how many people uphold a scientific precept.
06-08-2014 04:47 AM
MamaMunchkin There's another way to make things better ...

Hold the vax manufacturers liable for the safety of their products - just like any other consumer products, medical or otherwise.
06-08-2014 04:42 AM
MamaMunchkin We can do better by - not - making the lives of those who choose - not - to vax difficult.

By - not - limiting their children's choices of schooling, calling them names, disparaging them, mocking them, insulting them, denigrating their concerns, dismissing their questions, reducing their concerns to ignorance, swiftboating anyone who dares to speakup, discriminating them or their children in their social lives. Etc, etc.

In other words, by respecting the rights to - not - vax, regardless of the reasons.
06-08-2014 02:30 AM
prosciencemum Sure I agree it's frustrating. But I don't see how we can do better than the best advice that's out there.

And there have been people claiming vaccines are unnatural and dangerous since they were first introduced. Anti vaccination views are very far from new.

When serious issues have been found, or even just when the balance of risk benefit become unacceptable (eg polio OPV) recommendations change. This is incredibly reassuring to me.
06-07-2014 04:32 PM
ma2two
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.
It doesn't matter to us that 400 years ago, people believed some ridiculous things. It's great that advice has changed since then. But it does matter to us that within the span of our young children's lives, something as common as antidepressants during pregnancy went from being considered 100% safe, to being known to sometimes cause heart defects. Scientific knowledge progresses, and eventually scientific "consensus" changes, but mothers can't afford to move at the slow pace of "scientific consensus." We don't get "do-overs."
06-07-2014 03:13 PM
samaxtics Quote on consensus:

Quote:
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” Michael Crichton
06-07-2014 02:56 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....

The point is not so much how we view them right now, but how they were viewed then. And "in the day" those people believed that their beliefs were supported by science and consensus. And it turns out, they were wrong.

Not everything is known about the immune system and how every thing affects it and how it affects the infant's development. Here in this link, they are just discovering that:

Quote:
“Surprisingly, we found that newborns’ cells actually responded more vigorously to infection compared to adults,” said Rudd, assistant professor of immunology. “We also found that newborns’ cells go through their lifespans more quickly and die off sooner, before they can give rise to memory T cells and remember what they’ve learned. So the immune system is forced to start the learning process over again when infected by the same pathogen later in life.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ound-be-strong

I'm not sure why I would be expected to feel confident about consensus at this point.
06-07-2014 02:12 PM
prosciencemum Right. And now we think all those things are ridiculous - it's called the advancement of science.

These examples keep being posted as if they prove all science must be wrong - but I view them as positive stories that when the science says something's wrong the advice will change.

If it was always all right there would never be any progress....
06-07-2014 08:49 AM
samaxtics Here's some other examples of consensus amoung scientists:

-up until 1628 they believed the liver moved blood through the body

-that the earth was the centre of the universe

-that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity

-no need to wash your hands to deliver babies after cutting up cadavers

-that drugs don't cross the placental barrier or that certain drugs are safe to take during pregnancy

This is regarding birth defects after using antidepressants whilst pregnant:

Quote:
Gibson’s lawyers allege GSK knew or should have known about the risks and that it failed to apprise Gibson or her physicians.Gibson had asked her doctor if she should go off the drug during pregnancy; she was told it was “100 per cent safe.”
http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/...pill-for-that/
06-07-2014 06:47 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of…..


That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.
Oh, I am not so sure. I think if we went back in history to virtually any time period we would see a lot they got wrong - even though it was the dominant thought by the best trained minds at the time.

We cannot know what we get right and what we get wrong…time will tell, perhaps, but none of us can see the future. To think that everyone in history got a lot wrong, but we get everything right is fairly egotistical. Maybe our future great-great-great grandchildren will scoff at us.
06-07-2014 06:40 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method. I actually don't recommend anyone take a single scientists word for anything (myself included!). Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.
This sounds more like anti-scientist than anti-science…..and even then, I suspect it is more of an "anti how scientists are under significant influence by industry" than anything else. Moreover, anti-scientist is still too generalised….if the complaint is "too much industry influence to render the results trustworthy" (which is a common complaint with vaccination) does that apply evenly to all sceintists in all disciplines? Some disciplines or areas of study may be far less prone to influence that others.
06-06-2014 11:54 PM
prosciencemum No - we're asking you to trust that the majority of scientists give recommendations based on study following the scientific method. I actually don't recommend anyone take a single scientists word for anything (myself included!). Only when the scientific community accepts something as knowledge can we be really sure it's right.

Sure there are examples of scientists who history have revealed as lone correct voices, however there's a whole lot more scientists who had lone incorrect ideas and who you've never heard of.

History simplifies science into a story of great discoveries by great men (and more rarely women). Scientists today don't recognise that as the process we work in. We all contribute small steps in a gradual accumulation of knowledge.

That's true of the advice which is recognised about vaccinating (that it's safe and effective and even the recommended schedule). You cannot trust a lone (or even a few) voices over the majority of the scientific community.
06-06-2014 09:46 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Science isn't a belief system. Like my signature says, it's true whether or not you believe in it.

You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate the scientific method. I don't know about everyone else, but we learned the importance of the scientific method in elementary school.
Science is not a belief system. But scientism and positivism certainly are. You are not asking me to accept scientific findings. You are asking me to place my faith in certain individual, fallible scientists based on a logical fallacy ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html ) and a made-up number, 99.9%.
06-06-2014 08:49 PM
applejuice
Quote:
There are always going to be outliers.
Like Galileo and Semmelweis. Being in the minority does not make them wrong.

And Margaret Meade who said,

Quote:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
06-06-2014 12:32 PM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
She is making medical decisions for her children. The support forum should be called "I'm Not Vaccinating my Babies" or similar to avoid obscuring the real situation which posters her are chronically overlooking.
Is anyone confused by the intent of the "I'm not vaccinating" support forum that it needs the qualifier "my babies/children"?
06-06-2014 10:52 AM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
She absolutely can make her own medical decisions, but the fact that she has "researched" and decided that vaccines are dangerous, and that herd immunity is a myth, is not impressive just because she is college educated. She has no qualifications that deem her any kind of expert on the topic.
She is making medical decisions for her children. The support forum should be called "I'm Not Vaccinating my Babies" or similar to avoid obscuring the real situation which posters her are chronically overlooking.
06-06-2014 10:10 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Except you are misrepresenting what that quote was referring to. It wasn't referring to NVers in a general sense. I just went and looked at it. It said "If you 'believe' nutritional measures or homeopathy will save you from vaccine preventable diseases…." followed by that meme.
Do you deny that there are a bunch of memes and comments on rtavm that imply or state non-vaxxers are less than smart? You shouldn't - it is crystal clear and very verifiable. If you do…well then, I have no words.
06-06-2014 09:49 AM
samaxtics Teacozy, how do you define science?
06-06-2014 09:33 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
It sounds like you're making a leap of faith, then. Is your belief in vaccine schedule compliance based on faith or science? Surely it can't be science because you yourself admitted that you're not an expert and therefore don't know enough about it. Faith in certain scientists seems to be more the motivating factor.

To some degree, we all choose whom to believe. I just try not to make that choice based on the Bandwagon Fallacy. Copernicus and Sommelweiss didn't exactly represent a consensus, did they?
Science isn't a belief system. Like my signature says, it's true whether or not you believe in it.

You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate the scientific method. I don't know about everyone else, but we learned the importance of the scientific method in elementary school.
06-06-2014 09:31 AM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I did not have to look hard, tea. This is a pervasive stereotype.

I was pointing one of the reasons why NVers like to point out that as a demographic they tend to be well educated is to combat a common stereotype.
Except you are misrepresenting what that quote was referring to. It wasn't referring to NVers in a general sense. I just went and looked at it. It said "If you 'believe' nutritional measures or homeopathy will save you from vaccine preventable diseases…." followed by that meme.

Sorry, I have to agree that if a person thinks water pills and lots of kale will prevent them from getting measles if exposed then that is magical thinking.
06-06-2014 09:31 AM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Non-vaccinators, replace the word "children" in the search with "newborn" or "neonate". Do any of the resulting randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trials on newborns that found no safety-related effects convince even a single non-vaccinator to get even a single vaccination?
So, you make the claim and we do the work to support your claim?

Because if that's how it works I would like to proclaim that I would be a most benevolent wealthy person. Now everyone send me money so I can prove it. All currencies and denominations accepted.
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