Health Quiz Regarding Vaccine Safety

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Poll question: Health Quiz Regarding Vaccine Safety

Some here have invoked the phrase "holocaust denier" to anyone who dares question
the safety of any vaccine.

What do you think?

Should the Health Forum allow opposing views on vaccine safety or is it healthier
for only one view to be heard?

[baldguy]

1. People have the right to question the safety of vaccines

But to continue to do so when study after study answers the questions & proves their safety is dangerous & stupid.

[trotsky]

3. Bingo. n/t

:thumbsup:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

40. Vioxx, Rezulin, fen-phen and Bextra

reason to question the safety of some pharma products that are rushed out to the public
and peddled hard, for big money.

[trotsky]

46. Red herrings. n/t

[Orrex]

47. You're only saying that because you profited hugely from the Vioxx vaxxine

:rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

51. Vioxx, Rezulin, fen-phen and Bextra - examples of FDA approved and harmed people

and thanks to the Bush years, its even easier, for whatever the profit making item is.

[Warpy]

50. Those aren't vaccines

and a simple web search might have educated you on the difference.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Badly constructed quiz...

with any number of sane and sensible alternatives missing, in an attempt to force a particular response.

"Push polling", I believe, is the technical term

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. No one is stopping you from posting a better quiz

I'm sure yours will be much better. If you can post comments, you can figure out how
to post polls.

Meanwhile, people are welcome to vote without fear of harassment.

[trotsky]

5. Push-polling is the harassment happening here. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. Trotsky, if you want to alert on this poll, go ahead. Several people have already voted.

There's always the ignore button.

[trotsky]

7. Just stating the facts, ma'am.

You may recall my poll from a few months ago in which an OVERWHELMING majority was in favor of the standard vaccine schedule, but the difference is, mine was worded fairly. So while you will get the response you wanted (almost), it will be meaningless.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. I don't recall your poll

so sorry that mine upsets you so much.

[trotsky]

10. LOL n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. "LOL", 9 people have voted that people should be allowed to question

so mock on, please keep on posting your insults, it keeps the thread bumped up
so more people can take the poll.

[trotsky]

13. Push-polling

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PushPolling

A push poll, on the other hand, has the surface appearance of a regular poll, but is designed to frame the debate in a certain way: Questions may be worded to make some preferences seem undesirable or objectionable, or to make some preferences seem more attractive. Some options or preferences might be deliberately excluded.

I'm quite happy to keep kicking this so more people are exposed to your dishonest techniques.

[uppityperson]

17. I voted that because of the "some" part.

Of course people have the right to question the safety of some vaccines for some people. Doing so when study after study answers the questions & proves their safety for most people is dangerous & stupid. So is extrapolating "because there are a few instances when they aren't safe" into "they aren't safe for a majority of people.

That also is dangerous and stupid.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. voting in the poll is entirely voluntary

and many volunteered.

And for those who don't like the questions - its free to post your own poll.

Or don't vote in this one if you don't like it.

[uppityperson]

42. I know, I agree, was just giving feedback for my vote. eom

[Donnachaidh]

20. oh puh-leeze!

AS IF push-polling was a crime worthy of hanging.

AS IF push-polling doesn't happen EVERY SINGLE DAY on DU.

Harrassment via push-polling? DO please SHARE whatever it is you are smoking. :rofl:

[trotsky]

25. I guess you kind of missed the point, huh?

I intended to make a mockery of the word "harassment" because the other poster brought it up first, in an equally ludicrous way. Sorry I didn't use the :sarcasm: tag for the humor-impaired.

[varkam]

15. Is that really the best you can come up with?

The "well why don't you go and do better" response when your poll is pretty obviously slanted to get the responses that you want.

I would say lame, but considering the source, I'll just say par for the course.

[cosmik debris]

9. Don't forget chem trails and moon landing fakes.

:rofl:

Tell us again about how credible the CDC is!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. The CDC must be full of holocaust deniers

since they ask people to report vaccine related injuries.

Science is about asking questions, and developing new studies, and not letting mocking or
trying ever so hard to belittle people.

[cosmik debris]

14. So they are right about Gardasil?

That's a major breakthrough for you!

[Donnachaidh]

22. I'll bet the CDC has more than enough connections to Big Pharma

Wonder how much money is involved in the productions of vaccines that can be fearmongered into the public?

[cosmik debris]

26. Careful there,

The poster to whom you replied is arguing in another thread that the CDC is a credible source. You don't want to undermine her argument do you?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

31. no actually what I said was that tthe CDC says "vaccination has some risks..."

"However, as with any medical procedure, vaccination has some risks as well as substantial, proven benefits. Individuals react differently to vaccines, and there is no way to absolutely predict the reaction of a specific individual to a particular vaccine. Anyone who takes a vaccine should be fully informed about both the benefits and the risks of vaccination. Any questions or concerns should be discussed with a physician or other healthcare provider."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/safety/default.htm

[cosmik debris]

33. I'm glad you came around.

After all that whining you did about the dangers of Gardasil--Even while the CDC said it was Safe, Now you agree with the CDC!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. you have a strong need to try to put words in my mouth

do you think it fools anyone?

Look at the votes.

[cosmik debris]

41. But nobody cares

You have weakened your own voice by accepting far out theories.

[conscious evolution]

48. CDC was a credible source once upon a time.

Unfortunately,according to many friends and acquantences I have that are employed there, bushco installed a layer of management whose function seems to be to provide cover for the medical industry.
I don't trust anything that comes out of the CDC until I check with my freinds on the veracity of the CDC claims.
Hopefully,Obama will institute a house cleaning there and get rid of the political flunkys and let the Dr's and scientists do their thing without political interference.

[cosmik debris]

49. My point is that the poster is inconsistent.

She uses the CDC to support her position on vaccine safety, but rejects the CDC on the safety of Gardasil -- because Gardasil deals with pure little girl's private parts.

She wants to have it both ways. The CDC is only right when she agrees with them.

Just one more example of the hypocrisy of conspiracy theorists. They reject any evidence that does not agree with their conspiracy theory.

[cosmik debris]

16. Just to set the record straight,

Here is the quote that got her knickers in a twist.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

It bears very little resemblance to the poll because she wanted to spin it into a push poll.

[uppityperson]

18. Ah, thank you for that quote. What gets me is

not this quote "Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

but when people say "it isn't absolutely safe for everyone, therefore it is unsafe for most anyone".

[cosmik debris]

19. I just love the way she made "indifference" sound like "persecution"

But that's the way some people do business.

[Donnachaidh]

21. I wonder how many of the people calling others holocaust deniers actually work in the medical field?

Now THAT'S a poll that would be far more enlightening.

[cosmik debris]

23. All Of them! Didn't you read the quote?

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

Geeeze, try to keep up.

[likesmountains 52]

27. The anti vaccine people are welcome to their opinion..until they have to take care of

a baby with Pertussis... a baby that might die.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. the poll isn't about people being opposed to all vaccines - its about vaccine safety

its about whether people have the right to question some vaccines for some people.

Its about whether we should try to make vaccines as safe as possible for as many people
as possible.

[varkam]

44. Dress it up however you want to.

That's a mighty cheap tux you're wearing.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Why do you always deliberately misrepresent the posts of other members of this board?

Is it because you don't have any facts or data to back up your claims so you drag out the same old moldy strawmen?

cd's post:

cosmik debris (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-18-09 04:48 PM

11. From the NYT
Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13auti.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Your version(s) of teh troof:

WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-18-09 06:34 PM

18. "Cosmic Debris" invokes "holocaust deniers"
in the discussion.

And your OP based on your strawman :

WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-18-09 06:45 PM

Some here have invoked the phrase "holocaust denier" to anyone who dares question
the safety of any vaccine.

What do you think?

Should the Health Forum allow opposing views on vaccine safety or is it healthier
for only one view to be heard?

Get down off that straw, homeless people need it for bedding.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. Good! 16 votes in favor of people having the right to question

makes up for the negative comments posted here.

[cosmik debris]

32. Everyone has the right to be on the lunatic fringe. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. yes, and lunatics said the world was round

and were mocked and ridiculed.

[varkam]

43. But the difference is that they were right. eom

[Liberal Veteran]

68. Not really. The ancients didn't think the scientists were are involved in a conspiracy....

....to lure us over the edge of the flat earth.

While there were certainly people in power who might have clung to the "earth is flat" theory, there was never really any large outpouring of resistance to the notion that the earth was round, either among the scholars or the uneducated.

The notion that there was widespread scoffing at the round earthers is more the stuff of myth than it is reality.

[xchrom]

34. a poll for people who believe in wish craft.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

[cosmik debris]

35. Indifference is the worst enemy of the conspiracy theorist. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. we voting activists were attacked and called conspiracy theorists too

but we ignored it, we shrugged it off just like Obama shrugged off shit thrown at him.

Name calling, labeling, put downs, insults - are the tools of those on the defense of the indefensible.

[cosmik debris]

39. It no longer matters

You have marginalized yourself.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Nobody has called all who question the safety of any vaccine 'holocaust deniers'

However, some of the opponents of vaccinations don't make things easier for themselves by invoking sites that have links with right-wing conspiracy theorists or Christian-Right fundies. Recently, someone linked to whale.to. I have also seen links to healthtruthrevealed.

As regards your question: I certainly think that the forum should allow opposing views on vaccine safety. However, I think there should be tighter rules about allowing people to accuse pro-vaccine people of being 'shills' or motivated by profit. Personally, I consider access to vaccines to be a basic human right, which should not depend on ability to pay, and I would be quite happy if the Pharma companies had a lot less of a role. But that's because they tend to make medications and vaccines unaffordable to many - not because most medications and vaccines are bad.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

52. one of the attackers here quoted a NY Times article

that said doctors were beginning to equate skeptics to being holocaust deniers.

Its a good Bush tactic

[trotsky]

54. Push-polling is also a good Bush tactic.

They did it back in 2000 against John McCain.

[beam me up scottie]

55. OMG!!1! Someone here attacked you by quoting a DOCTOR from an article in the NEW YORK TIMES???

Here is the post that your "attacker" assaulted you with:

cosmik debris (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-18-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. From the NYT
Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13auti.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

cd's post was a response to yours:

WillYourVoteBCounted (1000+ posts) Sun Jan-18-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. but you know that vaccines are perfect for everyone
how dare you suggest that the earth is round?

You might want to quit playing the victim, WYVBC, 'cuz when it comes to hurling snark and insults in this forum, you're a pro.

Here is the quote in context from the NYT:

Dr. Nancy J. Minshew, a neurologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a leading autism expert, said she had begun telling any parent asking about vaccines to read the Offit book. A brain-imaging specialist who gets no money from vaccine companies, she said she had never met or spoken with Dr. Offit.

Autism, she said, is one of many diseases, like dyslexia, Elephant Man’s disease, tuberous sclerosis and schizophrenia, that are caused by genetic flaws but show no symptoms for years.

She blamed journalists for "creating a conspiracy where there was none." By acting as if there were two legitimate sides to the autism debate, she said, "the media has fed on this — it’s great for ratings."

Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings.

Dr. Offit’s book traces the history of autism theories, starting with the child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim’s blaming “refrigerator mothers.” It describes early false cures, including “facilitated communication,” in which assistants helped mute children type their thoughts; head-squeezing by osteopaths; cod liver oil; diets; and a 1998 fad for secretin, a pig hormone. It sums up 16 epidemiological studies showing no link between autism and either measles or thimerosal, a vaccine preservative.

To the newer argument that vaccines overwhelm babies’ immune systems, Dr. Offit notes that current shots against 14 diseases contain 153 proteins, while babies cope with thousands of new foreign proteins daily in food, dirt and animal hair, and that the smallpox vaccine that nearly every American over age 30 got as a child contained 200 proteins.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13auti.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Replacing science with faith based superstition is a good bush tactic too, do carry on.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

56. Actually, no doctor was quoted in the NYT, the NYT made a statement claiming

that "doctors" were saying this.

But they did not cite any doctors. Perhaps they were talking with Doctors who
are on the Pharma payroll.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Oh, dear, that's even worse, the cad assaulted you with a statement in the New York Times!!!1!!1

Actually, the article did cite many doctors, maybe you missed this one:

Dr. Nancy J. Minshew, a neurologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a leading autism expert, said she had begun telling any parent asking about vaccines to read the Offit book. A brain-imaging specialist who gets no money from vaccine companies, she said she had never met or spoken with Dr. Offit.

Since Dr. Minshew's education and experience couldn't possibly compare to Jenny McCarthy's, I doubt any doctor will be able to convert the pro-infectious-disease cult members.

[varkam]

65. But does she have children? How can you possibly expect to take someone who isn't a mommy seriously?

Seriously, BMUS, have a can of wake-the-fuck-up.

:crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

69. I'm sure she's an indigo too.

You're right, how can anyone possibly compete with all of that? :D

[beam me up scottie]

53. "If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate." -- Carl Sagan

A quick peruse of the assorted woo-fomercials in here is all it takes to prove you're allowed to proselytize superstition, pseudoscience and paranoia at will in this forum.

If you want to peddle it unchallenged, use your group.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. the poll says "some vaccines" for "some people" - not flat out all vaccines or all people

but I guess you didn't get the illiteracy vaccine.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Carl Sagan had a gift for exposing ignorance, he despised anti-intellectualism and superstitious woo

But he was polite about it, so I'm not surprised that went over your head.

More wisdom from this inspiring man:

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

***

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

***

"Credulity kills."

***

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

***

"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."

***

"History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power have destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again."

***

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. Scientists question things, marketers push things, Big Pharma covers up things

Big Pharma hates it when people want better and more transparent drug trials,
and when people remember too well when Big Pharma screwed the public over.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Jesus Christ. Put the comic books down and wake up.

There is no single entity called "BIG PHARMA", there is no evil conspiracy to injure and kill patients, and no Snidely Whiplash type villains running things behind the scene.

I hate to ruin your paranoid fantasy, but the pharmaceutical industry does employ scientists who aren't evil and their research has improved and saved countless lives, including mine.

You are not a medical professional, you are not privy to industry secrets, you are not exposing evil scientists, and lastly, you are not special.

In fact, you are the one endangering people by making up shit about science-based medicine and posting it here.

[varkam]

64. .

:fistbump:

[beam me up scottie]

70. Evil scientists unite!

The plan to take over the world is right on schedule, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

73. Well said BMUS...

still kickin' ass and takin' names, I see :hi:

Sid

[Crunchy Frog]

62. He had a gift for communicating effectively

without namecalling or belittling.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Like I said, he was polite.

I don't have to be polite to anti-science and/or religious fundamentalists.

At least I'm not two-faced.

[varkam]

66. I voted that different opinions are unhealthy, and I'll tell you why.

Because the poll is so lame that it was offensive (and should be offensive) to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

[Liberal Veteran]

67. Push Poll regarding HIV

Should the Health Forum allow opposing views on the supposed link between HIV and AIDS or is it healthier
for only one view to be heard?

1) The science is fairly concrete and HIV is the cause of AIDS. Differing opinions on this is unhealthy and dangerous.

2) People should be able to openly question the link between HIV and AIDS" and the compounds they use to treat this "syndrome".

3) People who are concerned about the science behind HIV research are like anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, chemtrail theorists, and moon landing conspiratists.


That's probably neither here nor there, but there comes a point where you cross the line that separates healthy skepticism and a crusade.

The former is someone who doesn't cut and paste and cherry pick their way through databases looking for the next big thing they can be outraged about (ie, OMG! Some girl passed out after being given an injection of Gardasil! OMG! There were 7000 (!!!!) adverse reactions reported in VAERS about this or that vaccine! -and we'll just ignore that 6980 of them were common to nearly ANY injections) and looks at the bigger picture in context.

The latter is someone who has completely closed their mind on an issue and has already decided there is a huge conspiracy.

If you can honestly say to yourself, "You know, we claimed z caused y because of x and they removed x from z and yet y keeps happening, that even though I was completely led down the wrong track about x, it still must be z!", you may have moved over into the crusade category.

I saw the same things with the HIV doesn't cause AIDS crowd. In 1987 or so, they had a solid base, but by the time 2000 had rolled around, they had shifted their theory from one thing to another to another and eventually started claiming that the drugs that treat AIDS cause AIDS.

I'm seeing the same thing now in the splintering of the "theories" for why vaccines are bad. Especially since the first and favorite target (Thimerasol) is suffering the fate of calling the antivax side's bluff. So we get "EEK! It's aluminum!" and "It's the combination of several shots in one!" and "it's the order in which they are given" and "it's the magical property of water memory that makes homeopathy work that's contaminating the vaccines in manufacturing" and "It's the frequency of vaccination".

All of that sounds, somewhat plausible on the surface in a way or more likely are dressed up in the trappings of scientific jargon to make it sound plausible. But then again, so does "tertiary syphillis as the cause of immune system failure", or "too much recreational drugs", or "immune reaction to semen", or "breakdown of the mitochondria as result of antiviral therapy" among the splintering I've seen among the AIDS denialist camp.

There is a difference between healthy scientific concern and flat out tinfoil hattery and pseudoscience.

[trotsky]

71. Brilliant response and excellent analogy. n/t

[SidDithers]

72. Other. Feel free to question the safety of a vaccine...

but if you're going to do it, you better be damn sure that your questions are rooted in sound medical research, and not internet woo and celebrity endorsements.

Sid