Friday, July 13, 2012

Random Vaccination Rebuttal to a Friend...

Background: I feel very strongly that IF your child is healthy enough to be immunized, he/she should be. Still, I don't think you should do it if you find the evidence compelling you to do otherwise. That said, PLEASE make sure the evidence is credible when making your decision.

That said, below are a few of my notes on some information a friend posted from the Natural News Network.

Please take my notes as exactly what they are-- one mom's internet-based research in response to another mom's internet-based research. My research is not meant to be definitive, necessarily advisory, or otherwise. I only mean to point out some of the inconsistencies I keep on seeing in the natural health news sites I've seen thus far.

[For your reference, my framework for evaluating said sites is similar to what you will find HERE.]



Some information about the Natural News Site itself:

The following is included in the Natural News website Terms of Service:
4. PROFESSIONAL ADVICE 
No information on this site is intended as, or shall be construed as, legal, financial, medical or expert advice of any kind. NaturalNews is not responsible for typographical errors, editing errors, or news source errors. THE NaturalNews NETWORK STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT YOU SEEK ADVICE FROM A COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL REGARDING ISSUES IN ANY PROFESSIONAL FIELD.

The “Declaration of Journalistic Interdependence” on the Natural News Website which explicitly states, among other things, that the site makes money from the products it endorses. This, according to the Vaccine Report you messages me with is a “conflict of interest”—one so concerning that the Natural News website condemns pro-vaccine doctors for (seemingly lesser) conflicts of interest, but fails to do so for its own organization.

The “Health Ranger” himself posted incendiary (and pretty blatantly WRONG) information about skeptics, such as myself at this link: http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html This post in and of itself is pretty damning to Mike Adams’ credibility to anyone outside of the anti-vaccine crowd.  

Some information about the “Vaccines: Get the Full Story” PDF

Compositionally and analytically speaking, the way the Vaccines document is written is rhetorically misleading. It uses sweeping generalities and red herring to “prove” vaccines are bad. However, the misinformation does not disprove the effectiveness of vaccination. It only points to common information readily available on the CDC website, and a few pieces of misleading information (sweeping generalities).  
On page 2, the 1986 National Vaccine Act is mentioned because . However the 1986 Act also meant the federal government enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which does allow for recourse in the event of adverse vaccine effects. It is also important to note that these acts enabled the costs of vaccine to remain as low as possible, and a $0.75 excise tax allows for a fund that pays out on Vaccine Injuries as decided by three government agencies (listed on the HRSA site below).

The first link in the “Vaccines: Get the Full Story” PDF doesn’t work, the survey page cannot be found. Source: http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/survey.pdf

On page 3, the following (very propagandistic) language is used: “The only people who benefit from being healthy are you and those you care about.” This is incorrect; especially in light of the current status of “Obamacare” (also deemed “Romneycare” by some admitted leftists) means healthcare companies benefit greatly from not having to subsidize our illnesses.

The document makes a point of stating: “Autism is associated with vaccines.” This is true; it is true BECAUSE of the usage of the word ASSOCIATION. An association is: the “correlation of elements  of perception”. This means that, by definition, the term association refers to the way perception influences correlation—if a particular population (i.e. Natural News) perceives a connection between two ideas (like autism and vaccination) they are then associated.

I found ONE study on incentives and HMOs—it was dated 2001. Source: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp340.pdf

Some information about http://www.fourteenstudies.org/
There IS a (non-US, German) study that was done on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. And, (according to the site listed below) the results don’t show a whole lot of anything other than more pertussis, measles, mumps in the non-vaccinated group. Not a big surprise. Sources: http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=211 & http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=80869

MISCELLANEOUS—
The following site: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-injury-compensation-programs offers reliable (i.e. well-researched with applicable sources) information about the history of vaccinations that you may find interesting.
The International Vaccine Counsel touts a membership of “hundreds” of doctors. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there were over 691,000 doctors as of 2010, which means an extremely small portion of doctors has subscribed to this set of beliefs.








No comments:

Post a Comment