Jump to content

Decision re: Non Vaccinators Support Group


  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

#51 Acidulous Osprey

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:01 PM

Kirby is not a reasonable source though.

#52 baddmammajamma

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:06 PM

QUOTE (Balzac @ 24/01/2013, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Kirby is not a reasonable source though.


Exactly!

He is neither a doctor nor a scientist. He is a freelance writer with a book to promote and an agenda to push. The BMJ (not me, British Medical Journal) tore his book to shreds.

The Huffington Post wants readership. Controversial columnists help ensure that.



#53 Fright bat

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

It's not about moderating the whole issue out of EB. Anti vaccers are welcome to come into the general disussion and give their view point. I have never seen the mods remove posts from anti-vaccers.

The point is more that a protected forum is inappropriate. There is no reason anyone (unless they are a disadvantaged minority group) need a protected space for anything. People should have to justify their points of view, and any view (vaccination or not) should be up for scrutiny.

Anti vaccers have not been banned from EB; they have just had a protected space 'unprotected'. I don't see the issue.

#54 Datrys

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

QUOTE (Freakypet @ 24/01/2013, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Of COURSE I dispute incorrect information, doesn't mean anything here!


I don't know about that...

We all have our hobby horses.  And I've been known to dispute incorrect information pertaining to mine, ad nauseum.  Does it mean everyone believes or agrees with me?  Of course not, but it does mean that there is a plurality of voices on the issue, and that does mean a very great deal.

On this particular issue, I think EB has done the right thing.  This isn't about oppressing anti-vaxxers, but it does allow for discussion of the issues in a context which is not misleading.

#55 Jane Jetson

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:10 PM

QUOTE (Madame Protart @ 24/01/2013, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I really get how AVN, etc can get away with claiming government conspiracies- sealed court documents, mainstream media not reporting on court decisions - it doesn't look good.


Do you seriously think the mainstream media would not have an absolute whacking great carnival of a field day if a link between autism and the MMR were actually proven?

Y'know, just like it did over the original Wakefield study?

In the ludicriously unlikely event this were to happen, every media outlet in the world would be all over it. From a purely journalistic perspective it would be a great story - controversy, battler underdogs, threats to innocent children - so why on earth would we not leap upon it? Because it's not there, that's why.

#56 Feral*Spikey*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Madame Protart @ 24/01/2013, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What???
I did not declare it "evidence" there is a link.  I said even the government conceded in one case the MMR was a trigger.  Read it yourself.

There is hysterics on both sides of the argument I can see.


You did, but that misrepresents what the government actually conceded. They agreed to compensate for the primary vaccine injury. They didn't compensate for the autism - no one was able to prove a link between the vaccine or the injury and the autism. They agreed that it may have been a possible cause but that it might not have been - as in autism pre-existed the injury.

Its a court of law - they work on the balance of probabilities in compensation cases. Its not the same as scientific evidence that a link exists. A concession to a probability does not equal an irrefutable fact.

#57 EsmeLennox

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:13 PM

QUOTE (Ange Vert @ 24/01/2013, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
.

On this particular issue, I think EB has done the right thing.  This isn't about oppressing anti-vaxxers, but it does allow for discussion of the issues in a context which is not misleading.


I think this is the crux of the situation.

#58 F.E.B.E

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:15 PM

QUOTE (Sif @ 24/01/2013, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I trust then you will be advising EB NOT to state categorically

* that vaccinations are harmless and completely safe,

* that children who have had adverse reaction should STILL be vaccinated without question because it is a parents civil duty to vaccinate,

* that vaccinations provide immunity - when such a status cannot be verified without post-vaccination testing...

All these statements are ALSO incorrect/unsubstantiated medical information which is widely disseminated on Essential Baby.


Parents are informed of the  possible side-effects of vaccinating at the time of vaccination and on government websites. I have always seen EBers be supportive of those members who have children who cannot be vaccinated at all or to the complete schedule because of medical reasons.


QUOTE (Madame Protart @ 24/01/2013, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So the vocal bullies win.  Boo.

It makes me really cross.  A group of bullies - yes that's what you call a pack with an agenda - hijacked a thread that was meant to be protected - a SUPPORT group - and Admin bows to the pressure.

One of those posters claimed she would use her 'influence' with the Mods to get the change.  So I guess that happened hey?

Choosing not to vaccinate is NOT illegal.   EB is meant to be for ALL parents, even those who don't vaccinate.  It's absolute bullsh*t and I'm not buying "incorrect medical information".  The thread was idle for months; until it was hijacked of course.  What about questions on formula, sleep, starting solids?  Lots of "incorrect medical" advise going on there.  

The stupidest part of all is at least here on EB, people had some chance of getting varied and unbiased information on vaccinations.  And now?  They'll be heading over to the very biased AVN.   Smart move.  Not.


I did hear that someone made that claim but it never eventuated. In any case that is only a decision for the mod and admin team. We had slowly been making moves to make the thread more heavily moderated, and with a code of conduct, in the end it just wasn't working. We made the decision today during our regular admin meeting.

Members can still discuss vaccination from all sides, we just aren't allowing a "support space" for non-medical vaccine refusal.

QUOTE
It was very idle. From memory, it was perhaps six months since someone posted. No-one was spreading lies or misinformation or falsehoods.

That was actually another reason we decided to close it. It wasn't a vital part of the forums.

#59 Feral*Spikey*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:16 PM

QUOTE (Madame Protart @ 24/01/2013, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I did say that in my edit.   Unfortunately it would be impossible to prove either way.  But the fact remains some parents do believe the MMR caused or perhaps triggered would be a better word, their child's ASD.  I don't think they should be dismissed as "uneducated nutjobs".


I'm not calling anyone an uneducated nutjob. Especially not a person whose child has experienced a severe vaccine related injury.

However, we also know that signs of ASD show up at the same stage of development as the key ages for vaccination - MMR in particular. There is ample evidence of correlation, nothing that shows causation whatsoever. ASD doesn't require a 'trigger', its there.

#60 Guest_skooch_*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:20 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21...ial-debate.html

I would be interested to hear opinions on this case, it has caused difficulties in my house. Apparantly the reaction happened very quickly and most DRs involved are in agreement that it was the vaccine.

#61 galba

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:23 PM


This happened a couple of years ago in Perth and made me question vaccination and the way that adverse reactions are recorded and decisions made by the Dept of Health.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-au...u-1226035296706



#62 ComradeBob

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

That sounds like a typical Daily Mail beat up, frankly.

#63 purplekitty

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

QUOTE (Madame Protart @ 24/01/2013, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You know I had to search high and low for that one article from a reasonable source.  All the articles were from the anti-vax'ers website.  I really get how AVN, etc can get away with claiming government conspiracies- sealed court documents, mainstream media not reporting on court decisions - it doesn't look good.
Just a heads up- Huffpo is not a reasonable source on science and medicine.
IME some of the dodgiest sites are top of a Google search.

Look at the well known Autism websites(not Age of Autism) and see their responses to news events like this.

Just for balance original.gif on the subject,
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/...-induces-ennui/

Freakypet,I read every post,I never know when I'm going to learn something new but on some subjects posters are going to have to convince me,I'm not going to take their word for it.

#64 hopelessromantic

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

QUOTE
Parents are informed of the  possible side-effects of vaccinating at the time of vaccination and on government websites. I have always seen EBers be supportive of those members who have children who cannot be vaccinated at all or to the complete schedule because of medical reasons.




I agree.  I received plenty of information from my health professionals and made an informed decision with regard to my children.  But I have heard some very strange things touted by people who felt differently to me.  Their children, their decision. But good information is invaluable in these decisions.


Every parent needes to do their research about all their decisions for their children.  I think this is a smart move by EB. It allows people to look deeper and go to their health care professionals for information which is really important.


Edited to fix quote

Edited by hopelessromantic, 24 January 2013 - 07:31 PM.


#65 Franny and Zooey

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:33 PM

Wow, EB is becoming so sanitized and bland.  A variety of opinions cannot be discussed or debated, because we all need to conform?  Freedom of speech dies so we can protect big corporations from litigation.

SHAME ON YOU EB!

#66 Acidulous Osprey

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

No it means that antivaccination is now to be discussed outside a protected forum where the debate can be robust and not onesided.

Discussion is not being restricted, it's being opened up.

#67 Franny and Zooey

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:40 PM

What next the homebirth forum is closed?  

Or how about we money forum?  Should people not be getting advice from banks or financial planners?  Will EB be responsible when someone loses life savings?

#68 Guest_3Keiki_*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

EB is an australian based website.
Now I will admit I am no expert on the australian constitution but I think you will find American has a freedom of speech protected but does australia.....??? I am thinking no not really....
Spikey have you got any idea?
(You are way smart!)

#69 Acidulous Osprey

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:47 PM

The US has freedom of speech but it does not mean that any forum has to provide a protected platform for people to exercise their right to freedom of speech.  Stormfront cannot go to a civil rights forum and post their filth for example and then b**ch if it is edited.

This is not a freedom of speech issue in any case.  Australia does not have a freedom of speech right but even if we did it would not say that a privately owned forum must provide a protected forum for any issue.

#70 Guest_3Keiki_*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:50 PM

Thanks Balzac,


#71 PooksLikeChristmas

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

I am very pleased. Yes, I was going to leave if it continued. I consider it unethical behaviour on the part of EB, and I will not be a part/support of a organisation of any sort that I believe is behaving unethically. I don't wish to shut down all discussion about anti-vaxx, as I do support freedom of speech, I just believe EB would be wrong to provide space for it given their position, commercial aims, etc. I don't see it as bullying, I just think there is a consensus amongst most people that it's inappropriate. I hope that anti-vaxxers can understand that they are not being targeted for attack, it's just that EB is the wrong place for such a thread and that it needs to avoid promoting practices which are dangerous for the community, disclaimer or no.

Thank you EB admins for being responsible and responding to your member's concerns.

#72 mommyoffour

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE (3Keiki @ 24/01/2013, 08:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
EB is an australian based website.
Now I will admit I am no expert on the australian constitution but I think you will find American has a freedom of speech protected but does australia.....??? I am thinking no not really....
Spikey have you got any idea?
(You are way smart!)


We have implied constitutional rights, which means we kinda do. But certainly not with the same strength as the US.
I think this whole decision is a bit silly, given all the other odd pseudo medical advice that gets bandied about around here, but looks like it's popular, so "meh". Go to a natural parenting forum for less judgment and more support if you're a non-vaxer.

#73 Lucrezia Bauble

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:04 PM

The Right to free speech in the US isn't absolute, they have defamation laws just like we do...

As PP have said, we don't have a " right to free speech" enshrined in our constitution, we do have an implied right to some types of free speech, namely the free flow of political ideas, as an integral part of being a democracy (Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation)... Which is good...as it allows us to poke fun at the pollies!  tongue.gif ..but even that is not as cut and dry as some might think....

The right to free speech is the bastion of every scoundrel .....

#74 Feral*Spikey*

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:06 PM

We only have the right to free political speech under our Constitution.

Everything else is dependent on our common law rights, except where specific legislation exists. (so not implied under the Constitution at all)

So, no,  you don't automatically have a right to free speech, and we have legislation that prevents you (or attempts to) saying particular things - such as racially vilifying someone. Definitely not free speech in that case!

I'm also thankful that the support thread has been closed, as I believe that any discussion of vaccination (including alternatives, and not vaccinating) should be open to a broader selection of information than is permitted in a 'support' forum. This is because contradicting a poster can be seen as unsupportive, even though the aim is to support them in getting the best health outcomes for their children.

#75 TheCeriseClupea

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

Balzac did you know that the StormFront also have a sub section dedicated to people who oppose their ideals. Irony,

I have to agree though with minority here, It seems a little more than coincidental that after the furor of the Measles topic in News that the support thread was withdrawn. Call me a cynic but I think soon enough there will be further uproar. Every time a discussion starts on circumcision or vaccination the pack mentality starts up. I understand people being passionately opposed to a topic but not to the degree it gets on here. I recall a few years ago the debacle over the Formula add here on EB & the outcry from members demanding it be removed. So many times over the last decade I have been a member here I have seen information & advice given that is wrong. Science is fallible so tell me what happens in years to come if there is a correlation between vaccination & Autism ? Then what, do we all say "but they told us it was safe". Rewind back to the Thalidomide days when pregnant woman where given it. Not all the children born had deformities but those who did spent years trying to determine why it had happened. There a plenty of other drugs that you can look up yourself that have been withdrawn due to side effects that were unknown until it was too late.I have a child who is on the spectrum, I don't have the answers but not through lack of trying to find out why.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
 
Advertisement
 

Top 5 Viewed Articles

 
Advertisement
 
 
 
Advertisement
 
 
Essential Baby and Essential Kids is the place to find parenting information and parenting support relating to conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids, maternity, family budgeting, family travel, nutrition and wellbeing, family entertainment, kids entertainment, tips for the family home, child-friendly recipes and parenting. Try our pregnancy due date calculator to determine your due date, or our ovulation calculator to predict ovulation and your fertile period. Our pregnancy week by week guide shows your baby's stages of development. Access our very active mum's discussion groups in the Essential Baby forums or the Essential Kids forums to talk to mums about conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids and parenting lifestyle. Essential Baby also offers a baby names database of more than 22,000 baby names, popular baby names, boys' names, girls' names and baby names advice in our baby names forum. Essential Kids features a range of free printable worksheets for kids from preschool years through to primary school years. For the latest baby clothes, maternity clothes, maternity accessories, toddler products, kids toys and kids clothing, breastfeeding and other parenting resources, check out Essential Baby and Essential Kids.