fessie, the questions you have not answered are, 1) Should “Experiential knowledge” re autism (“My neighbor’s kid just plain changed after he got his shots”) trump physicians’ recommendations for vaccination, and
How do you expect physicians to “work with mothers’ instincts” on this issue?
Exclaiming about the public response to Oprah’s show featuring the fearful celebrity parents, and declaring your intent to cut and paste claims from anti-vax websites doesn’t constitute direct answers. But it’s a pretty good indicator of what camp you’ve allied yourself with.
No, jsgoddessI don’t for one minute imagine that 3,000 posts render something “true”. But it says that this is a BIG issue for a lot of mothers.
“Should”? Who knows? Who cares? In reality, it does. That’s the problem.
If people in the medical community would take the time and trouble to answer the anti-vaxers concerns directly, I think they’d make some progress. And that would be a good thing. I don’t want MY vaccinated kids getting sick anyway because of a loss of herd immunity.
I don’t understand why you keep putting my interest in an emotional context. Why slur me ("it’s clear what camp YOU’RE in) for raising a difficult issue? That’s exactly the kind of response that causes women to turn away from pediatricians and do their own research. How dare you question me!!! That makes you ignorant!!! Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:
Nobody really knows what causes autism, only that it’s on the rise. Ergo the problem.
You mean like this? (just one example of the continuing efforts by the medical community to keep parents informed about the issues and questions associated with vaccination).
You’re not “raising a difficult issue”. Relying on information from anti-vax websites and anti-vax anecdotes signifies that you have taken a stand on the issue.
What you seem to want is for physicians and scientists to validate these kinds of parental concerns in some unspecified way, only you’re unwilling to specify just how they should do this or address the potential consequences.
We’re not talking theoretical “should” here, THAT IS my point! People ARE responding to anecdotes and experiential data. Have you noticed that the anti-vax movement is gaining momentum?
Talk with them, not at them. Drop the superiority attitude, and actually listen, these mothers are concerned for their children, why would they not be emotional. Give them the truth in percentages, try acting like science cares about their children also. I am talking person to person here. I remember when I had my heart attack, my wife was crying and the doctor left the room so her could compose herself. So much for personal care.
There is no way for anyone to separate their feelings from themselves. There is no such thing as objective. Everything we humans do is subjective, it passes through our personal belief systems which are charged with emotions.
It is a disaster now because drug research is not done with compassion for the people taking the medications. Drugs are a business, in business to make money, that is the primary concern of businesses.
Feeling sorry for someone is not wise, empathy with others is the key to understanding and knowledge.
We have not made up our minds so much as we want real honest information. Thank God for web sites that point out problems that concern us.
Can you provide the truth of the vaccine, can you say why we can’t go back to single jabs which in the past were safe, can you tell us why mercury was present in the vac when we know mercury is a deadly poison. If you can’t supply this information then we are talking to the wrong person. Just the facts, just the facts.
There are various techniques used to separate emotion from objective research results - they are not perfect but they do produce good results.
For example, a “double blind test” is one where the person conducting the test does not know which samples (patients) belong to the test group, and which ones to the control group. So there is no way that person’s emotions can influence the outcome. If the study result is presented without bias (i.e. without selecting for “good” results), then that is an objective result.
Like I said, drug research must be done without emotion. The business decisions of drug companies and insurance companies are another matter entirely, and I think that’s what you’re really criticizing.
Disappointed in your answer, it was primarily doctrine. A “method of finding truth” designed by men meant to cover all instances. A totally impossible task, one that can not even be imagined, the totality of all possible circumstances.
Try on the word “God.” Speak it to anyone and you will get their emotional knowledge of the word. Speak it to everyone and you will get every emotional response possible from the human condition.
I wasn’t trying to solve the vaccine problem. But it seems to me if 100 women say their child became Autistic shortly after getting the vaccine someone should take notice. Some answers should come down, not just claims that the vac is ok and didn’t do it. Don’t you agree?
Gave them to my children, never heard of a problem greater than a temporary discomfort. Autism is worse than death, it destroys a life, ruins a family’s income, cause guilt, emotional problems, and these last for a lifetime.
I guess it’s the old, “if it doesn’t happen to me, who cares” routine.
And your basis for this is a thread in an Internet forum commenting on an Oprah show? I detect wishful thinking, but no convincing evidence.
Which describes antivaxers’ claims in a nutshell.
Oh, and that reminds me.
Fluoride (used safely to treat water supplies) is also a “deadly poison”. In sufficient quantity, so is table salt. So are many things. The key is the dose.
In regards to mercury, can you tell us why you find the mercury/vaccine/autism theory appealing, when 1) the mercury-based preservative thimerosal was removed from common childhood vaccines in the U.S. in 2001 (and earlier elsewhere), but 2) reported autism rates have kept going up?
The first sentence tells me that your disappointment in my answer is because it was “primarily doctrine”. I take that to mean it was unsatifying because I approached the problem from a rational, clinical perspective. It also–rather clearly IMO–butts up against your notion that exploring truth in this way is “a totally impossible task”. Thus, I conclude you want commiseration more than feedback, and that is something I cannot provide–not because I’m cold-hearted or dismissive, but because I don’t think it really does any good.
Before I abandon this pointless thread, I would say that the question of knowledge is indeed something that can and should be explored philosophically; it’s a shame this line of questioning is derailed simply because you don’t want to pursue it rationally, but rather assume truth can only be explored or validated emotionally. There are countless historic examples of the tragedy that results when reality is sacrificed in service to personal biases, and many of these personal biases are formed and sustained as a result of the intense emotionalism surrounding them. It’s the very thing that makes a crusader dangerous. This is not a call for living a sterile, dispassionate life, but it should alert us to the dangers of allowing ourselves to get carried away by the emotion tug of rhetoric and pathos which–while good at drawing attention to a problem–aren’t very helpful in solving it.
If we reject the only avenue by which people can collaboratively explore problems in favor of venting our rage/passion/tears, the conversation devolves either into the mutual validation of sob-stories or sanctimonious blather about whose opinion is more popular/moving/comforting. There is certainly dignity in respecting other people’s emotions, but there is little value in using these emotions to justify an argument.
Your “Millenium” cite is interesting – facts, just facts, right? Nothing emotional or inflammatory there, right? I can’t replicate his highlights, so I’ll just point out that “nazis, racists and Ku Klux Klan” and “NAMBLA” are all in bright red.
Apparently YOU believe everything YOU’ve read about people whose view you oppose. You’ve got it fixed in your head that women who don’t do as you instruct are simply morons.
I don’t agree with their choice, I think the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks and I don’t have the resources and knowledge to educate myself about non-traditional healing.
BUT your characterization of these women is unfair and disrespectful. That’s “my dog” in this fight.
Some of the people (not all, but some) who have chosen not to vaccinate realize you can’t just opt-out of one aspect of conventional medicine and still be hunky-dory.
I have not characterized “these women”, or parents in this fashion.
While you have come down on the side of alt med quackery and/or anti-vax advocacy in several debates including this one, I think you’re semi-candid about not being wholeheartedly in favor of these causes. But it’s not about defending the reputations of concerned parents either.
I think it comes back to your OP in this thread. You have decided that the medical community, scientists and “experts” of all sorts are disrespecting you by making recommendations and policy. In your mind, they are just pointy-headed academics who are too big for their britches and need to be taken down a peg by salt-of-the-earth types (like yourself) who have Real World Experience. It’s a perceived control issue.
We shouldn’t underestimate the power of this resentment when it comes to health issues. There are people who’ll embrace just about any kind of silliness, no matter how useless or dangerous it is, as long as they think they’re defying The Establishment. No matter what effort physicians and public health workers make to explain and provide counseling on the issues, they’re never going to satisfy people with such deep-seated grudges.
What you are unable or unwilling to recognize are the consequences of this mindset. It’s especially bad when children have to pay the price. One anti-vaxer you quoted said:
Uh, Mom? You may have to “deal” with the diseases on one level, but the child you deliberately left unprotected and became sick is the one who’ll really have to “deal” with the consequences, including prolonged illness, potential permanent disability or death.
I’m not trying to take anybody down a peg, I’d just like to know what’s really going on. There’s so much information out there, it’s insane. Even just googling “what percentage of children are vaccinated” gives a wide range of answers. Hepatitis B, it’s sexually transmitted - if a mother tests negative, then why would an infant need that?
What’s funny about your assumptions about me, personally, is I got booted by the crunchistas for not being salt-o-the-earth enough (well, OK, technically I wasn’t banned - but it was a hell of a meltdown). My personal parenting habits are “mainstream” as all get-out, television, Chicken McNuggets, Disney princesses, you name it. I don’t think those choices are proof of parenting efficacy one way or the other, but nobody on their board wanted to hear that.
And I’m not on their “side” on this issue, either. My kids are fully vaccinated. Why can’t I be intellectually engaged without holding a particular emotional view? Interesting how difficult it is to separate the two.
I forgot to mention that I agreed with jsgoddess’s statement about patterns. That was an excellent point. I’m seeing that in my twins, they love to create visual patterns and are always turning phrases around to see if they still work, “No, you can’t have cookies.” “Whyyyy?” “It’s almost time for dinner.” “Well, if it wasn’t almost time for dinner, then I could have cookies.” It’s enough to make a mother pull out “BECAUSE I SAID SO!”
