|
tehllama posted:I mean its the same as being a "biologist" or "chemist." Accreditation for a lot of basic science programs are provided as part of a university's accreditation process rather than at the school level. What makes the nutritionist title unusual is that the title has formal accreditation status in some countries, and is frequently employed in a professional "clinical" context in the US by folks peddling alternative medicine. The reverse situation plays out in countries where "dietitian" is the unregulated title. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Nov 11, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Here's something you might not know about vaccines, they are the hidden reason babies die of shaken baby syndrome (abusive head trauma, the parents are all innocent martyrs!quote:We found that the research shows a very different picture (and has done so for a long time!): vaccines, not parents, are responsible for the vast majority of so-called SBS and that the blame is being shifted to parents to help hide the reality about vaccines. http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/rethinking-shaken-baby-syndrome-abuse.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Here's something you might not know about vaccines, they are the hidden reason babies die of shaken baby syndrome (abusive head trauma, the parents are all innocent martyrs! Yeah, no. This is probably one of the most disgusting claims of the anti vaccine movement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
The thing is, Vaccines ARE dangerous, people do get hurt, and people do die, but this is so drat rare, that the fact that we can PREVENT loving POLIO with them means that they are good. But we understand HOW they are dangerous, WHY they are dangerous, and what harm they CAN cause. I myself, had a allergic reaction of some kind, to the first shot I got as a toddler, and the doctor discouraged my parents from giving me the follow up shots. My grandmother told of when my father, and his brother, got hit, along with the entire street, and several children died, my uncle still has a limp to this day. SniHjen fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
tehllama posted:For what it's worth she appears to be a nutritionist with an Ed D, not an MD or a PhD. I think the fact that it passed the editors of a journal is somewhat more damning. The yawning gap between theory and implementation of peer review once again rears its ugly head. Wow that was a quality mixed metaphor I just pumped out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:The thing is, Vaccines ARE dangerous, people do get hurt, and people do die, but this is so drat rare, that the fact that we can PREVENT loving POLIO with them means that they are good. Yes, there is a potential for them to cause harm but I feel like calling them dangerous, while being technically correct, is a misnomer. Technically eating chicken wings can kill you by choking or through poor diet or by making your stomach explode by eating too many, but no one would ever call a chicken wing dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
I don't get flu shots because I am scared of needles and going outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:The thing is, Vaccines ARE dangerous, people do get hurt, and people do die, but this is so drat rare, that the fact that we can PREVENT loving POLIO with them means that they are good. Yeah, this. I have a loving awful reaction to the flu shot every time I've gotten it (I tend to be the odd case "rare side effects" for a lot of meds.) so when I'm working lovely office jobs where I'm not dealing with a lot of people I tend to skip it because I'd rather not have 2-3 days of utter misery. But when I was working with the public? 2-3 days of misery is worth it to A) avoid 1-2 weeks of the flu myself, and B) avoid killing some poor kid who for whatever reason can't get the flu shot. The thing is, I'm willing to bet a lot of people have minor reactions to things like the flu shot, and take it as evidence that vaccines are inherently evil. I had a bad reaction to the chicken pox vaccine too, but I was given the choice of it (due to moving a few times chicken pox had been skipped and when it was found out i was 7, mom gave me the option, and i went "gently caress no i dont want chicken pox!"), and then willingly got the gardasil vaccine despite knowing already that i have bad reactions to them, because a few days of a bad reaction is worth a few years of immunity. Don't public schools these days require immunizations? I know to go to public school I had to get MMR, DPT and polio, and my college also required meningitis (they gave that one out for $5 at orientation tho.) One of my neighbors growing up was an anti-vaxxer and had to send their kids to private school because they were told that their kids weren't allowed in public school without it. Having seen a friend catch whooping cough, i dont understand why anyone would willingly allow their child to sufffer through something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Actually, Discendo Vox brings up some very good points, they're just totally out of left field. Clinicians as a population are embarrassingly bad at evaluating scientific literature, but it's irrelevant in this discussion, because this isn't "critical evaluation of the science," it's "common loving sense with a basic medical education." Are doctors really particularly bad at evaluating scientific papers? There's plenty of biologists and other scientists who don't believe in vaccines and/or evolution, and I vaguely recall that even some Nobel Prize winners have succumbed to woo-woo bullshit. The problem here isn't education quality or specific education type, it's the more general fact that people won't let education or science get in the way of them believing whatever the gently caress they want. Being a research scientist doesn't make you immune or even resistant to the grasp of pseudoscience, and doctors seem no worse than any other highly educated person in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are doctors really particularly bad at evaluating scientific papers? There's plenty of biologists and other scientists who don't believe in vaccines and/or evolution, and I vaguely recall that even some Nobel Prize winners have succumbed to woo-woo bullshit. The problem here isn't education quality or specific education type, it's the more general fact that people won't let education or science get in the way of them believing whatever the gently caress they want. Being a research scientist doesn't make you immune or even resistant to the grasp of pseudoscience, and doctors seem no worse than any other highly educated person in that regard. I agree with you- the problems of susceptibility to bad science are shared across all humanity. Usually, though, scientists with training in a given field are at least more resistant to the "woo-woo" in their field. The exceptions tend to arise when the scientist is a) very prominent, or b) in a field that's underdeveloped. These factors are related to other general literacy and error factors, but those go outside the alt-medicine setting of this conversation and into bad science in general. The problem specific to doctors is that they're charged with overbroad responsibility and authority- folk intuitions of what doctors know or should have authority on are spread vaguely across all the areas of medical practice. The person in a white coat on TV selling us medication, the person ads tell us to "ask about" a specific medication, is rarely a field specialist. The demands on doctors are too high, and their field-specific knowledge in a given area is too low- meanwhile, doctors are sources of too much authority, in a setting where the stakes are tragically often too high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are doctors really particularly bad at evaluating scientific papers? There's plenty of biologists and other scientists who don't believe in vaccines and/or evolution, and I vaguely recall that even some Nobel Prize winners have succumbed to woo-woo bullshit. The problem here isn't education quality or specific education type, it's the more general fact that people won't let education or science get in the way of them believing whatever the gently caress they want. Being a research scientist doesn't make you immune or even resistant to the grasp of pseudoscience, and doctors seem no worse than any other highly educated person in that regard. Well that's the thing; a Nobel Prize winning physicist who believes in the healing power of crystals probably hasn't even read any scientific papers on the topic; that poo poo costs money and who has the time to read papers outside of your field that you're probably going to have difficulty understanding anyway? But I would expect a doctor who believes in the healing power of crystals to not only have access to those papers, but to also read them, because he's a loving doctor. But in this context, we're not really talking about woo. We're talking about MDs seeing a paper that describes the trapezoidal rule, a basic element of calculus, and then either allowing that paper to be published or citing that paper. Literally everyone who enters med school has seen the trapezoidal rule, and possibly even used it. Integration is a major part of any field involving statistics, which includes medicine. This is why several doctors piped up and said "you fuckwits, this is the trapezoidal rule, how can you embarrass yourselves like this?" QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But in this context, we're not really talking about woo. We're talking about MDs seeing a paper that describes the trapezoidal rule, a basic element of calculus, and then either allowing that paper to be published or citing that paper. Literally everyone who enters med school has seen the trapezoidal rule, and possibly even used it. Integration is a major part of any field involving statistics, which includes medicine. This is why several doctors piped up and said "you fuckwits, this is the trapezoidal rule, how can you embarrass yourselves like this?" I would be surprised if all medical schools actually require that you take calculus, and if they do, they probably only require easier calculus classes aimed at students in social and life sciences. I think that it would be pretty easy to take a crappy calculus class and come out of it not really understanding the trapezoidal rule. I got a 5 on one of the AP calculus exams in high school and didn't really have a good intuition for calculus. It wasn't until college courses where I finally got an intuition for the subject. And there are a lot of statistics classes aimed at people in life and social sciences which are designed to teach methods and do not assume that you have an understanding of calculus. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
AA is for Quitters posted:Don't public schools these days require immunizations? I know to go to public school I had to get MMR, DPT and polio, and my college also required meningitis (they gave that one out for $5 at orientation tho.) One of my neighbors growing up was an anti-vaxxer and had to send their kids to private school because they were told that their kids weren't allowed in public school without it. Having seen a friend catch whooping cough, i dont understand why anyone would willingly allow their child to sufffer through something like that. http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schImmRqmtReport.asp?s=Religious,%20grantee&d=10&w=%20&t=2
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
gabi posted:In theory, yes, but just about every state has exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons (hilariously, this doesn't include Mississippi or West Virginia). Here's the results from the CDC database on school vaccination requirements: Some states in places where flare ups have occurred are revoking exemptions if I recall, on a case by case basis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
New Anti-Vaccine argument I heard made today: I have a "Jennerian Fetish" Apparently vaccines are just a fetish. Pack it up guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:New Anti-Vaccine argument I heard made today: You could at least go for Dr. Maurice Hilleman (developed vaccines for measles, mumps, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, chickenpox, meningitis, pneumonia, and one of the early flu vaccines). Don't be an underachiever, now  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Turns out my sister is friends with a bunch of anti-vaxx nutjobs. This is bad, since she just announced that she's pregnant with my first nephew/niece. Here's three gems from some of her dumb friends:another nutjob posted:"Thankfully we live I a free country and have the freedom to choose what is best for our families. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We will all have to agree to disagree. Vaccination is a personal choice." some dumb bitch posted:"Sorry but when your friend had a child of 3 months die from a vaccine and two other friends with vaccine damaged children, you tend to do a little homework. Herd immunity is a croc of crap. If herd immunity is what is keeping the community safe then vaccines are not doing it's job for those who are vaccinated... again, if your child is vaccinated, what is the worry of an unvaccinated child? Your vaccinated child is safe right?" Oh and here's the best one. She went back and edited this out later, but I checked my facebook notifications and here's the whole enchilada  some dumb bitch, again posted:I am not opposed to the idea of vaccinations. The truth is that in the last few decades the ingredients are ridiculous in these vaccines! Every doctor should be arrested for malpractice of injecting know heavy metals and toxins directly past the blood brain barrier in infants. I would be less noisy about the subject if the CDC weren't a money driven company who will openly skew the statistics to make them appear safe and effective. The truth is that they are not proven to be safe nor effective. Outright lies on the part of the CDC and the manufactures of these. Again, money driven. Once looking at both sides of the arguments when I was pregnant it was easy to see into the evil that lies behind the makers. The information is out there. Every one should weigh the options and risks. Until they are proven safe and effective... no thanks for me. God made the human body to be perfectly capable to care for itself and fight diseases at birth when NOT compromised through vaccines. Infant vaccinations cause the immune system to shut to a lower level of effeciency. Hence why vaccinated children will get a common cold left and right and still catch what they were vaccinated for. I'm sick of the brainwashing we receive through media and the man in the white coat as being god like and all knowing. http://www.naturalnews.com/042012_vaccine_facts_vaccine-damaged_children_CDC.html" Yeah, she's using https://www.naturalnews.com being used to cite this drivel. JUST MAKING CHILI fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Turns out my sister is friends with a bunch of anti-vaxx nutjobs. This is bad, since she just announced that she's pregnant with my first nephew/niece. Here's two gems from some of her dumb friends: I'm so sorry 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm so sorry Luckily my parents aren't morons, her husband seems level headed, and her father-in-law is violently opposed to anti-vaccination propaganda. I think we can save her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
some dumb bitch, again posted:God made the human body to be perfectly capable to care for itself and fight diseases at birth when NOT compromised through vaccines. Infant vaccinations cause the immune system to shut to a lower level of effeciency. Hence why vaccinated children will get a common cold left and right and still catch what they were vaccinated for. Which is exactly why average life span dropped once vaccines were developed and the only people who catch diseases were vaccinated against them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:56
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Which is exactly why average life span dropped once vaccines were developed and the only people who catch diseases were vaccinated against them. Exactly! Have you seen the lifespans of some of the people in the bible? I bet they didn't take any vaccine poison!!! 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:Luckily my parents aren't morons, her husband seems level headed, and her father-in-law is violently opposed to anti-vaccination propaganda. I think we can save her. I actually see a lot of new parents post on facebook and have their anti-vax friends swoop in and tell them how they should consider not vaccinating their kids and I see too many otherwise intelligent people decide they want to at least "examine all the evidence". It's depressing cause I get why parents want to do the best for their kids and have all these friends who's opinions they respect come in and tell them to think about it, it gets to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Which is exactly why average life span dropped once vaccines were developed and the only people who catch diseases were vaccinated against them. It's weird that these people often seize on two opposite strands of argument - the problem of relatively sterile childhood environments versus vaccines. But vaccines are exposing people to something, it's the opposite to the thing they're complaining about.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
My sister-in-laws best friend had a baby that suffered toxic shock from a vaccine, and now has severe developmental delays (not autism though). She is also a GP, and so now tells concerned parents that ask: 'Get the loving vaccines you morons. Reactions that severe are incredibly rare, and significantly rarer than damage caused by the diseases vaccines protect you from.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Our pediatrician has a mandatory vaccination policy. He'll work with parents on staggered schedules if they want that, but bottom line, if you are anti-vaxx, you are free to get a new doctor. I appreciate this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our pediatrician has a mandatory vaccination policy. He'll work with parents on staggered schedules if they want that, but bottom line, if you are anti-vaxx, you are free to get a new doctor. Our does that too, and we love him for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our pediatrician has a mandatory vaccination policy. He'll work with parents on staggered schedules if they want that, but bottom line, if you are anti-vaxx, you are free to get a new doctor. After recently realizing my kids pediatricians office did not have this policy, I've switched to one that does. I appreciate that there are offices out there that do this. Unfortunately, if they all did this, a lot of these nuts would just stop taking their kids to the doctor altogether. I wish they'd just make it a law already (exempting those with actual allergies and real contraindications of course).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Our pediatrician has a mandatory vaccination policy. He'll work with parents on staggered schedules if they want that, but bottom line, if you are anti-vaxx, you are free to get a new doctor. Hey Actus, since you're a publicity funded law-talking type, maybe you can clear something up for me. It seems to me that providing vaccines for children is a part of basic healthcare, much like making sure a broken arm is mended or bacteria inflections are treated with proper medicine, etc. There have been cases in the past where children whose parents choose to deny their kids this basic care have been sent to jail when serious harm came to their children as a direct result of this. Why then are parents who don't vaccinate and their children catch measles or whooping cough treated in a similar manner, scaling to the harm caused to the child? The other aspect I want to point out is that unlike other widely recognized forms of child abuse - say starvation or physical abuse - by not choosing to vaccinate a child, you're not only possibly harming the child, you're putting others at risk as well. Is there any precedent for legally sanctioning parents for choosing to put people at risk in this manner? If not, is there a good reason not to that I'm not seeing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Hey Actus, since you're a publicity funded law-talking type, maybe you can clear something up for me. This is a really good question. Generally, the government does not intervene on questions of preventative care. I hate slippery slope arguments, but if one were to say the government had a right to dictate when a parent must vaccinate or face criminal sanction/removal of child, could the same be applied to routine dental screenings? pap smears starting at a certain age? etc. etc. Add our lack of universal preventative care to the mix (some parents can't afford preventative care) and you have another issue to consider. Obviously the public health risks of not vaccinating give the government a little more of a stake in this particular issue, but the way that is generally handled is via the state's regulatory powers over its school systems. All 50 states require vaccination to enter school. All also unfortunately offer medical exemptions for children who truly cannot take a vaccine (immune-compromised, allergies, etc.) and most allow religious exemptions, some now offer "philosophical exemptions." whatever the gently caress that means. As for what happens when a kid does get measles or polio or something, there would probably be a causation issue. While not getting vaccinated certainly put the kid at greater risk, unless the parent not only failed to vaccinate and then exposed the kid to a live virus, had them tongue kiss the neighbor kid with measles, etc. etc. it would be difficult to prove any sort of criminal liability. Not vaccinating doesn't necessarily mean one WILL get sick, as opposed to something more certain. e.g. if you do not give this child these anti-biotics now, your kid's infection will spread and they will die. This is a really bare bones explanation. If you want me to bore you with more talk of first amendment aspects of child raising, and negligence under civil and criminal definitions, let me know. But bottom line, vaccinate your drat kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I could imagine compulsory vaccinations if there were a series of outbreaks of various diseases.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I could imagine compulsory vaccinations if there were a series of outbreaks of various diseases. http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/21/5329478/vaccine-preventable-disease-outbreaks-show-anti-vaccine-movement-influence
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
not vaccine related, but chemotherapy related...this is how these people think: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-of-connecticut-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemotherapy-speaks-out/ I've done "research" so I will allow my minor child to reject a treatment regimen that has a 90% success rate for this particular fatal illness. I'm not saying chemo is a walk in the park...but as a mother myself, I simply cannot imagine saying no in the case of a 17 year old child with a full and meaningful life ahead of her. At 80? sure, reject treatment and go the death with dignity route. But 17? No. Also, what the hell is up with all that leopard print?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ Well that's loving sad. Nice work, mom. The anti-vax movement has already peaked. There will always be hold-outs but I think the overton window shifted and narrowed a few years ago. I was living in Brooklyn (which is probably right up there with Portland and Boulder etc. in being dumb on this kind of issue) and people would be openly anti-vax in mixed company (even anti-vitamin-K-shot, wtf) in ~2008. Now I think even the anti-vax folks know their opinion is not seen as reasonable by most people and they only bring it up in the safety of "modern tribal mom" closed facebook groups and the like. pangstrom fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
"modern tribal mom" lol. there is nothing worse than upper middle class suburban mommy mafias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:57
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/21/5329478/vaccine-preventable-disease-outbreaks-show-anti-vaccine-movement-influence I think clearly not enough white people died for this to reach the policy tipping point.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Generally, the government does not intervene on questions of preventative care. I hate slippery slope arguments, but if one were to say the government had a right to dictate when a parent must vaccinate or face criminal sanction/removal of child, could the same be applied to routine dental screenings? ActusRhesus posted:pap smears starting at a certain age? etc. etc. ActusRhesus posted:Add our lack of universal preventative care to the mix (some parents can't afford preventative care) and you have another issue to consider ActusRhesus posted:As for what happens when a kid does get measles or polio or something, there would probably be a causation issue. While not getting vaccinated certainly put the kid at greater risk, unless the parent not only failed to vaccinate and then exposed the kid to a live virus, had them tongue kiss the neighbor kid with measles, etc. etc. it would be difficult to prove any sort of criminal liability. Not vaccinating doesn't necessarily mean one WILL get sick, as opposed to something more certain. e.g. if you do not give this child these anti-biotics now, your kid's infection will spread and they will die. Leaving my infant unsupervised in the bathtub doesn't necessarily mean he'll drown. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Firing into a crowd doesn't necessarily mean that someone will get hurt. Putting people needlessly at risk isn't criminal! Your understanding of negligence/recklessness as it is applied in a criminal context is a little off here. I agree that not vaccinating your kids is, in my opinion, loving negligent. But the courts take a different view and apply a different definition than the lay definition of "you're loving stupid if you don't do this."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think clearly not enough white people died for this to reach the policy tipping point. The problem being with diseases of this sort is they CAN reach a tipping point, and you kinda need to catch the outbreaks BEFORE the tipping point to be effective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Which is exactly why average life span dropped once vaccines were developed and the only people who catch diseases were vaccinated against them.  I always want to show anti-vaccine nuts this kind of graph, it's very clear how effective vaccines are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"modern tribal mom" -Breastfeeding and people who may not have been okay with an instance of public breastfeeding and oh man those people -Brunch places that will/will not allow strollers and the ethics of this -Co-sleeping/other sleep stuff -Kid food naturalness/purity whatever -Cord blood -Going back to work / moms who didn't have to (this is a big divide that emerges in these groups, as the unemployed continue to hang out on weekday mornings etc.) -Child care/nannies -Vaccinations -Prepreprepreschools -Not-judging-but-judging mutual acquaintance moms with different opinions/practices on the above. Listening to dumb stuff is not the end of the world but I am a goon/low on social graces and impulse control so it was hard. Pay attention to car seats, leaded paint, dangling cords, poisons, swimming pools, etc., that's the controllable stuff that has the most potential to hurt your kid. I think even "tribal moms/dads" calm down a lot as their kid gets older or if they have a second kid, though. pangstrom fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:33
|
|