View Single Post
Old 6th March 2008, 05:28 AM   #26
Deetee
Illuminator
 
Deetee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,799
Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
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.
OK, understood.

Originally Posted by MinorityView View Post
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.
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?
__________________
"Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja
"Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles
"The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda
"Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM
Deetee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top