Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The video is over an hour long. Could you please summarize it for us?Does he professionally mistrust the current CDC vaccine schedule and advocate an alternative one, or was he explaining why some parents don't trust it? Does he state that children shouldn't receive any vaccinations before the age of two, and then should only be selectively vaccinated? I Googled his name to try to find a condensed version of what he believes but the only hit regarding vaccines was from the Facebook page Vaccine Choice Canada. I am sort of leery of anything recommended from that page because of the melodramatic misrepresentations in the current top post.
Most doctors absolutely do understand parental concerns, but strive to address and alleviate them.
ETA: I'm in the car and watching part of the video now.
He immediately explains that he is fully vaccinated, and had all of his children fully vaccinated. Then he describes a conversation with the mother of a patient who told him she wouldn't give her son the MMR vaccine until he was older because of fear that it would cause him to develop autism. He explains to her how Wakefield's study in the Lancet has been resoundingly refuted, and he was stripped of his medical license, to which she replied that "you are wrong, and not only are you wrong, but Wakefield is a hero." He tells her about a professor at a conference he'd recently attended who'd said that prison alone was insufficient punishment for Wakefield. Still the woman was adamant. So then he decided that he should crawl down the rabbit hole to figure out why she was adamant that Wakefield was heroic. Oooohk.
I disagree with his assertions on the the Hepatitis B Vaccine, both the reasoning for it and the claim that the aluminum it contains is harmful.
http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/06/why-infants-should-receive-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth/
http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine...cine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm
Okay. My signal is fading so I'm stopping now. Hopefully you can give a synopsis for the rest of the video and things improve beyond the 5 minute mark.
It was worth my time to watch it.
Wakefield has been made to be a villian from what I have read on most pro vax websites. It was nice to see a timeline of events.
It doesn't surprise me that you disagree.
I merely wanted to post it as a point of interest for anyone who might like to see concerns of why people don't vax. While I've been researching it, I have lost a lot of respect for some pro vax people. It's been made into a very ugly fight.
I will continue to follow the topic as it interests me and it's better to be informed than surprised.
I rather like the webpage Vaccine choice Canada. It gives me information on the laws in Canada regarding vaccines.
I have often been lost in the CDC recommendations in the US as compared to Canada.
I can try to give a synopsis later if I think of it. We watched it in class and I had forgotten about it. I found it in on my USB when I've been trying to get my computer back to normal after the crash. I just remember it being very interesting and he used lots of studies to back up his findings.
If it the video was beneficial to you, that's nice. I look forward to your synopsis!
Pro-vaccination websites constitute half a thimble's worth of the universal condemnation for Andrew Wakefield. The medical establishment has firmly and resoundingly censured him for his grotesquely unethical, fraudulent, and abusive actions that are documented and legally proven. Courts of law have not found in his favor. It's not about emotions, but an examination of the facts of his actions. The Lancet retracted his paper years before Facebook and its pro and anti vaccine pages existed. The medical community didn't just watch a few videos or pop onto some websites before castigating him; they actually thoroughly examined what he did first, in addition to the destructive ramifications of his actions. In January 2010, a tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges against Wakefield proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. He subjected young children, including ones with autism, to unnecessary, painful, and invasive medical procedures, such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies, without having obtained the proper permission from an ethical review board. His advocation of unfounded medical treatments such as bleach enemas for autistic children has led to distress and harm for them and their parents. Many parents of autistic children, including ones who were direct patients of his, have been vocal in their repudiation of him because of the harm caused to their kids.
He has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, blamed directly and indirectly, for irresponsibly starting a panic with tragic repercussions: vaccination rates so low that childhood diseases once all but eradicated, such as pertussis and measles, among them — have re-emerged, endangering young lives. I've had pertussis because of the endemic here and in tandem with my compromised immune system. 101 days of agony that made shingles feel like a few splinters in comparison. I've never shared my experiences on pro-vaccination groups, and rarely anywhere. His study consisted of only 12 children, but placed a thousand times that in the path of harm. In comparison most vaccine studies have thousands of participants. His paper has been unequivocally refuted by physicians around the world. His hospital dismissed him and he was stripped of his medical license. He's lost multiple lawsuits. Pro-vaccination sites have, if anything, a trivial amount of influence on the medical and legal community's rebuke of him.
His belief that the MMR vaccine caused autism is that the three vaccines, given together, can alter a child’s immune system. What he failed to disclose was that he had filed for a patent on a single-dose vaccine, so he had an extraordinary financial incentive to make parents selective about vaccinations.
As I explained in my post, I only watched the first five minutes of that video and disagreed with that portion. Disagreement was actually the improper word because it was a matter of facts rather than opinions. I provided credible references to explain the reasoning. I don't have much time this week so I won't provide detailed explanations for each point when you provide a synopsis. I was just trying to help you out on the first problem I identified. Tis all.
This is what confuzzles me about your research methodologies. It's not about respecting people for their behavior, but respecting evidence conducted and reviewed by a multitude of people with established credentials and a reputation that is respected by their peers. With the abundance of reputable sites with clear and substantial evidence I don't understand utilizing sites where drama can even take place, such as Facebook, for research. Someone here told me about the Facebook site Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes, and I pop on there every once and a while, but never for the purpose of research or for solidifying or in any other way influencing my views on vaccines. Most "pro-vaccination" sites lack ads and are unsentimental, like the CDC, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and such. We've been discussing this on my college's private forum and it's been respectful and undramatic even in mild disagreement. I don't know what sites you're frequenting.
Direct, undramatic, simmmmmmmple:
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/vaccine_safety
Most pro-vaccination people are part of the "silent majority" who rarely engage in controversy or bickering about vaccines unless personally affected. Busloads of anti-vaccination people have trekked to Sacramento to wave signs about SB 277 being a "Holocaust" while pro-vaccination people continued on with their days because they were confident the decision would be made based on facts rather than emotions. And they were totally right. It's easily won the votes with minimal effort from those who are pro-vaccination.
You didn't use to have any interest in this, and I regret asking you off-the-cuff about vaccines back in January during the measles outbreak here in LA, but was curious about whether you needed them for college. Prior to then you seemed content with your mom not believing in them. We're 17 and don't have children. I honestly had thought you'd spend a few minutes looking at your college's requirements for vaccines, and then would bring it up when you saw your doctor, and that would be that, ha. If you're wanting to be informed, I don't understand not just taking a class about it that focuses on the science of vaccines rather than emotions, or reading that book from the Canadian Pediatric Society you bought. I know you weren't interested in the one offered by the University of Pennsylvania for free on Coursera. Here's another free online course: http://www.vaccineeducationonline.org
Straight-forward, user-friendly information is available directly from the Canadian Pediatric Society, the Canadian Immunization Guide, and other reputable sites. What else about the laws for vaccines are you wanting information on? Most of your siblings are homeschooled and therefore exempt from the Ontario requirement to provide proof of immunization for enrollment at schools. It's not illegal to not vaccinate your children in Canada, but the Public Health Minister was ardently encouraged citizens to take advantage of the free immunizations readily available there.
You can find PDFs of them laid out very neatly and simply. Are you looking at the recommendations for babies or for people our age? Here's some info for our age.
CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/for-preteens-teens.html
http://www.vaccines.gov/who_and_when/college/
Canada:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/immunization/static/immunization_tool.html#14-16
I did just find this about a mom whose teenager daughter died at college from meningitis while doing the Google search for vaccine recommendations for college students in Canada. The vaccine she's referencing is now available in the US but it wasn't when her daughter died.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...ing-mom-heads-canada-lifesaving-shots-n106646
Say what. You watched that video in a class? What class, and why? Did your mom have you watch it for one of your classes she teaches you, or was it a teacher from school? It would have been really helpful if he had actually posted the links to those studies, or at least listed them below the video. Most people aren't going to watch a video that long from a random small-town physician. It was just uploaded at the end of the April, so it's not like you've got to reach back into your memory from years ago, haha. Anyway........ hope you're having a good one today. OH! And I'm glad you got your laptop back and it's up and running. Whewwwwww.
HPV Vaccine Injuries and Deaths Now Being Reported from Central and South America
Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm
Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.
Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.
Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone.
They conveniently forgot to mention that he was a conspiracy theorist, 9/11 truther and germ theory denialist.
Also, he only claimed to have an MD and was never licensed to practice medicine. Anywhere.
ETA: Did a bit more research. Apparently, his idea was all disease is caused by white blood cells clumping together. So I can now conclusively write him off as knowing absolute squat about medical science.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your marginalizing of him because he does not hold beliefs that you hold only tells me you don't want to see any evidence because you have already made up your mind, so you choose to marginalize the man instead. That's ok. The links are not meant for people like you and at least the links are now recorded for others to read and maybe give this subject a more fair-minded treatment. You don't like the argument/evidence so you defame the messenger.
By the way, a conspiracy is a secret meeting or conspiring of two or more individuals to hide something usually evil but individuals can of course conspire together to do something good, such as hold a surprise birthday party for someone. So, we know conspiring to do something evil or good happens all the time and conspiracy theories are just that, theories until proven fact and many have been proven fact. Of course it might take 40 years until something is declassified, but eventually, if it was a true conspiracy, the truth often comes out. Nothing wrong with theorizing there may have been a conspiracy or are we just supposed to accept everything the boobs on the boob tube tell us.
What do you think about the Gardasil vaccines? I think I can guess.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your marginalizing of him because he does not hold beliefs that you hold only tells me you don't want to see any evidence because you have already made up your mind, so you choose to marginalize the man instead. That's ok. The links are not meant for people like you and at least the links are now recorded for others to read and maybe give this subject a more fair-minded treatment. You don't like the argument/evidence so you defame the messenger.
In 2010-11 I returned to my PhD training to complete a full year accredited Clinical Neuropsychology internship at the Baycrest Center for Geriatric Care in Toronto. During this time I also taught a University course on Health Medicine at York University in Toronto. I stopped talking about my research and vaccines. The Public Health Department advocated that I NOT be allowed to return to clinical medicine as they were incensed by the message (truth) of my lectures and teaching prior to ‘disappearing.’ The only way I was allowed to return to organized medicine to work with medical patients was if I signed a contract drawn up by the public health department which states: 1) I am mentally ill and therefore my research and teachings on vaccine safety were delusional. 2) I am not allowed, whatsoever, to speak or present my research or views on vaccine safety, in public, at all, as a condition of being allowed to return to clinical medicine, receiving a medical license, and for maintaining that license. [6]
My brother was Bipolar and it was consuming his life. Drew committed suicide on Monday, November 4, 2013. He is at peace now.
How is it a matter of opinion whether Andrew Moulden was ever licensed to practice medicine? Stating "you are entitled to your opinion," about factual matters feels like an attempt marginalize integrity.
It is a matter of opinion about what he thinks of the man.
He unqualified to practice medicine, his ideas about vaccination and illness show ignorance or deliberate misinformation about physiology and is trying to sell a product supposedly detect all manner of brain injuries/disorders and a subscription website.
Why would you defend him?
Well, I am not really defending him. I did not make this about him. It is about the information he discovered.
Many people who don't have degrees or certificates can still have expert knowledge in a subject. But, it looks like the subject has been lost to a personality, now and I suppose that is the whole point in "killing the messenger".
If you look at the IDSA panel of "experts" on Lyme Disease, they are constantly putting out misinformation on Lyme because many are being paid by Pharmaceuticals or influenced by the CDC.
And they are all "qualified" doctors.
The information he "discovered" (pulled out of thin air) makes no sense at all, and anyone with even the teensiest modicum of knowledge in medicine would realize it instantly. He was no expert. He was a charlatan.
Not to toot my own horn, but my field does require I maintain a decent understanding of human physiology.
Well, I am not really defending him. I did not make this about him. It is about the information he discovered.
Many people who don't have degrees or certificates can still have expert knowledge in a subject. But, it looks like the subject has been lost to a personality, now and I suppose that is the whole point in "killing the messenger".
If you look at the IDSA panel of "experts" on Lyme Disease, they are constantly putting out misinformation on Lyme because many are being paid by Pharmaceuticals or influenced by the CDC.
And they are all "qualified" doctors.
What do you think about the Gardasil vaccine?
And you'd probably be correct. I'm all for it. HPV is a public health hazard that leads to substantially increased cancer risk. What's your position on cancer? I think I can guess.
http://www.lymedisease.org/idsa_lyme_guidelines/I'd rather trust medical researchers than an unqualified guy trying to make money. The messenger in the case of something like medicine is important.
His information is also bogus. As BensonInABox has already described.
According to whom?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?