• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Antivaxers do it again

MinorityView said:
Ah. Interesting. Conclusions aren't actually data, you know.
Click to expand...
....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

I went and checked it out. No paranoid conspiracy theory rants.
Click to expand...
Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.
 
Last edited:
Deetee said:
....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.
Click to expand...

Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.

Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle. I have indeed been promoting the blog on Jabs. Why? Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.

Thousands of people are reading our articles. More every day. We constantly get feed back like: "This is a great blog. So glad I found it. Obviously carefully researched. Will share it with others."

You found something which you feel is an error. I pointed out that you are not looking at the entire spectrum of bacteria in question. Okay, I'm wicked scum. No problem. I agree that my behavior was dishonest, inappropriate and sneaky. You are right to call me on it. Now, how about dealing with the problem of serotype replacement? Even better, how about coming over and posting your response on the blog, where it will do some good against all those poor parents who are being deceived by those wicked anti-vaxers? I can assure you, very few of them come and read here.

We are all hoping that some smart people will come and visit insidevaccines...but we've been disappointed before. The pro-vaxers don't seem to know what to say about our blogs, so they either pretend we don't exist, or else pull one item out of context, distort it and yell "see, aren't they bad!" Just like you did.

If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.

Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...:D
 
MinorityView said:
Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired ;))

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.
 
I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?
 
MinorityView said:
If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.
Click to expand...
In the the rather biased article "Close encounters with the vaccine schedule" the first comment lists all the ingredients injected into a child's blood. Perhaps you could correct this as this seems to be a perpetuated misunderstanding. No vaccines are injected intravenously, they are given intramuscularly or orally or subcutaneously where they are then engulfed by antigen processing cells which then migrate to the local lymph nodes. The vaccine components never get into the blood stream.
 
MinorityView said:
Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.
Click to expand...

OK, understood.

MinorityView said:
Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle.
Click to expand...

And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?
 
biostudent said:
I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired ;))

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.
Click to expand...

The content of the discussion with the doctor was based on actual experiences of some of the parents who help with the blog. We had to eliminate a lot of actual quotes from doctors, because no one would believe them. There is a great thread in the archives of the vaccine forum at that place where you get banned as trolls (I'm not going to name it) where hundreds of moms describe what happened to them when they told a doctor they didn't want to vaccinate their child. We mostly couldn't use those experiences, either.

Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.
 
skeptigirl said:
I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?
Click to expand...

You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.
 
Deetee said:
OK, understood.



And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?
Click to expand...

Okay. I understand where you are coming from. I think it is unfortunate, because a real, scientifically based debate on vaccination would be helpful to both sides. We would love to see this discussion move above and beyond the cliched accusations that are bandied back and forth and address the science.

We will not delete comments we disagree with. We will reply to them. If someone points out an error we will correct it.

I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell:cool:
 
I'm curious as to why a series of articles written by people without the requisite knowledge and experience to fully understand the subject is to be considered as a useful source of information? Why bother helping fix a flawed article when good quality information is already available? Helping parents distinguish reliable sources of information from the merely biased is (I think) a more fruitful endeavour. Based on the contents of that blog, I highly doubt that you are sincere.

Linda
 
MinorityView said:
I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell:cool:
Click to expand...

So..... unwilling to answer even a simple question, huh?
Time for a bit of deja vu, surely?
MinorityView said:
Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...:D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MinorityView said:
Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.
Click to expand...
Pity you have gone MV. You can quite easily discuss vaccines here as well as the InsideVaccines site. Anyway, has anyone found where the contributions have been incorporated into the blog article? I couldn't find them.
 
I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:
Hi, I'm Fyrestorm. I'm a WAHM of an almost 4 YO completely unvaxed and intact DD.
Click to expand...
I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?
 
Last edited:
Deetee said:
I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:

I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?
Click to expand...

I think DD means Dear Daughter. Also I've seen a lot of anti-vaccination people refer to unvaccinated kids as intact. It's a bit bizarre. Anyway, other things like DD are DS (dear son), DH (dear husband), and things like that. It's usually women saying these things on sites with tons of women, so I rarely see DW (dear wife) although I have seen it.

edit: oh and WAHM probably means work at home mom. Not exactly sure on that one though. You usually see SAHM (stay at home mom) so this one must be self employed.

And I know these things from having once hung out on baby sites, ahem. ;)
 
Last edited:
MinorityView said:
You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.
Click to expand...
I'll get around to your page soon. But you are asking me to look at a bunch of things people think they understand. I know what the stats are on HiB invasive disease. I have had my own practice specializing in infectious disease for 17 years. I have been giving vaccines for 30 years. And I make every effort to read volumes on vaccine research, the ACIP guidelines and supporting evidence, the controversy and so on. You think providers are dumb? Do you think we are lazy? Do you think we are duped? Do you think we are in on the Big Pharma conspiracy? Think only drug companies fund research? Think every public health organization in the world are also oblivious to the risks and benefits of vaccines but a handful of people who have drawn conclusions from a tiny itty bitty fraction of evidence have it figured out and the rest of us can't see it?

I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread, you are willing to let a neurologist cut into your brain if you needed it but you think the same person couldn't evaluate vaccine risks and benefits?

Think about, MV. Do you really think 8+ years of college, a number of years in an internship and dozens of years of experience doesn't prepare a health care provider to make an intelligent assessment of the risks and benefits of vaccinations?

I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?
 
skeptigirl said:
I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda
 
fls said:
It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda
Click to expand...

Or control their weight. Or not smoke. Or not drink alcohol to excess. Or eat a balanced diet. Medical professionals make sub-optimal health decisions just like the rest of us.
 
As Ivor pointed out in another thread, with supporting evidence, it's mainly a matter of trust. It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.

Also, I suspect that the irrational anti-vaxers you despise so much are also much more likely to reject surgical options as well, choosing those alternative medicine approaches instead. After all, some people do make that choice and they often die soon after as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom