[hypocaffeinemia]

Originally Posted by bollweevil

Peers can be biased, peers may have their own ugly reasons for holding a certain view and that reason might be treacherous and self-serving, not in the public interest or pure. In other words, peers put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and I do.

I know that's an ugly thought but my life experiences have taught me to basically be very skeptical. follow the money, follow the power. We are often shocked and horrified to see where the trail leads. Not always but often enough that we just never really know for sure that we can actually trust someone, peer though he may be.

Ooh, intrigue!

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes us look less professional. Paranoia regarding peer-reviewed research. What about the meta-studies? Are they all biased, too?



I think a lot of people are cognitively dissociating from reality because they disagree with the conclusions. They hold out hope for one more study to demonstrate a link, because the only reason a link hasn't been demonstrated is because "the research is inadequate" or "the research is biased-- follow the money", or any number of other excuses. Granted, this is hot subject due to emotions, but that's the time when one should rely on evidenced-based practices instead of feelings.

[rph3664]

I mentioned on another board just yesterday that it wouldn't surprise me if autism quacks are springing up, the way quacks existed for other diseases in the past (and, truthfully, still do).

If you have a mysterious disease with no known established treatment or cure, it almost makes sense to try and give yourself hope but nowadays, it can divert time, money, and attention from legitimate therapies.

[mercyteapot]

It wouldn't surprise you? Autism quacks have been around as long as autism. They're nothing new.

[rph3664]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

It wouldn't surprise you? Autism quacks have been around as long as autism. They're nothing new.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm talking about them springing up like mushrooms in the wake of all the publicity about the disorder.

I've read horror stories (and keep in mind that in many cases, this was a combination of ignorance and love) about people with MR or "childhood schizophrenia" (i.e. autism) being given ECT back when the procedure was relatively new. It might have helped them if they were depressed but it wouldn't have helped them otherwise.

Ditto doing it on gay people with the hopes it would cure them of that as well but that's a whole 'nother story.

[bollweevil]

Originally Posted by methylene

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes us look less professional. Paranoia regarding peer-reviewed research. What about the meta-studies? Are they all biased, too?



I think a lot of people are cognitively dissociating from reality because they disagree with the conclusions. They hold out hope for one more study to demonstrate a link, because the only reason a link hasn't been demonstrated is because "the research is inadequate" or "the research is biased-- follow the money", or any number of other excuses. Granted, this is hot subject due to emotions, but that's the time when one should rely on evidenced-based practices instead of feelings.

How is it professional to believe every study in a peer-reviewed journal?



Certainly you are familiar with studies that first told us to take estrogen, then the ones that said estrogen is dangerous. Then the ones that said go on and take it, and so on, until we don't know what we should really do and we wind up using our own best informed opinion.

Furthermore, many a pediatrician will admit that he or she has very little time to really research all the studies about these vaccines so then what do we do?

I have just heard and read and seen too much to not be skeptical. It is a lonely path, that of skeptic. It is a whole lot easier to go with the flow and be a conformist. I wish I could.

I do not want to argue, everyone can and absolutely should have their own studied opinion. This is just my . Please do whatever you think is right for your own children.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by methylene

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes us look less professional. Paranoia regarding peer-reviewed research. What about the meta-studies? Are they all biased, too?



I think a lot of people are cognitively dissociating from reality because they disagree with the conclusions. They hold out hope for one more study to demonstrate a link, because the only reason a link hasn't been demonstrated is because "the research is inadequate" or "the research is biased-- follow the money", or any number of other excuses. Granted, this is hot subject due to emotions, but that's the time when one should rely on evidenced-based practices instead of feelings.

Andrew Wakefield's study in Lancet was peer reviewed. Surely you're not saying that peer reviewed studies are fail safe?

[BabyRN2Be]

Originally Posted by rph3664

I realized after asking the question that it might be the baby in your signature, as I do not know if you have any other children.

Didn't you mention that megachurch in a previous post? I remember someone telling a story about such a facility in their community.

Yup. That's the kiddo in question in my signature - for now she's our only child. And I admit I just might be a very nervous, sometimes semi-clueless first time mommy () but that reaction (for lack of better term) did concern me.

And yes, you remembered correctly the megachurch that does not vaccinate in this community. However, she's really not outside the home that much. She's not in a daycare situation, and there's relatively few babies at church when we have her there. When we attend Wednesday nights, she's been only one of two babies in the nursery for her age group. And because the nursery is a little more packed on Sunday, we have a mother's lounge and I take her in there with me so she's exposed to less children.

Other than that, she's at home with me or with grandma. Now, things may change as fall comes around because I'd like to get into a MOPS (Mother's of Pre-Schoolers) group. She's be with other children there and I'll have to rethink the vaccine issue a little more.

I'm really trying to be middle of the road on this issue. I am concerned about her brain development and holding off on a lot of the vaccines before she goes to school. From what I understand, they are necessary for school and I don't know how the "megachurch" kids get around that issue because there's not a medical reason... they're probably doing it on religious grounds.

Wish we had more information on more definite causes of autism though...

[heathIam]

Not vaccinating your children is just natures way of culling the herd. I fully support parent's right to take their genes out of the pool - it leaves more resources for mine.

[zoesgarden]

My nephew developed autism almost immediately after taking his 18 month shots. I've been attending the Florida Healing Outpouring, where I believe 5 healings have been reported for autism. I've been sitting with the noisy ones, so we've had a chance to talk and compare notes. ALL of them report a change in their children after taking the 18 month shots. The incidence of conversion to autism after the shots seems to be higher in Florida than in other states according to the mommys.

[hypocaffeinemia]

So now vaccines cause autism spontaneously, but faith healing cures it.

Awesome.

This is so much easier than evidence based practice.


Praise the Lord and pass the tinfoil!