Well I guess even iVillage has standards.
It is not a debate, your saying it is does not make it so.
#1 - so I point out that opponents occasionally pop in TO SLING INSULTS and this means that they just occasionally pop in. You have stretched the interpretation of my sentence to suit your position. That seems to happen a lot with you.
#2 - you gave me those 3 earlier... when I asked you for the safety data that launched the practice of vaccinating hours-old newborns, what did you do? Predictably, you chose a blog entry from SBM that didn't even answer MY VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.
#3 - YOU are preaching about talking out both sides of your mouth? Now THAT is rich.
As to being called a pharmashill, it was decidedly after you starting waving your conspiracy flag, and you know it. Then you have yet more audacity to infer people here are being childish? You might as well have closed saying "I know you are but what am I?"
From one of Charlotte's best posts. - Search the post starting with TRUST.
"I could give endless examples, but I want to end with just one – one that I don’t think anyone in this room is guilty of. It concerns vaccination – not flu vaccination or MMR vaccination – but polio vaccination. As some of you know, there are two polio vaccines; one’s a shot and the other is delivered orally. The oral vaccine is a live, weakened vaccine. It is significantly less safe than the injected (dead) vaccine, and it’s now illegal in most developed countries. But it’s a lot cheaper, and has other advantages that make it the vaccine of choice for developing countries, including the fact that the vaccine virus spreads to other non-vaccinated children – without their knowledge or consent – giving them protection against polio too. But about one vaccinee in a million gets polio from the vaccine itself, and from time to time there’s an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio cases in children who were not directly vaccinated. (Vaccine virus sheds in the stools of vaccinated children, and very occasionally reverts to a more virulent form that starts circulating in the community. Unvaccinated people are then at risk of catching polio from the mutated polio vaccine virus in their environment.)
A few years ago, Nigeria experienced the largest such outbreak on record. It started in 2005 and was reported to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2006. But health authorities were reluctant to acknowledge it, especially in Nigeria. Why were the authorities reluctant to say anything? Religious leaders in parts of some Muslim countries, including Nigeria, have opposed the polio eradication program. They have claimed, among other things, that the program is a western genocidal plot. The polio risk from the oral vaccine is the germ of truth in that false belief, although of course the vaccine prevents orders of magnitude more polio than it causes.
Authorities feared that acknowledging the Nigerian vaccine-derived polio virus outbreak would give credence to the claims of anti-vaccine imams. Instead, of course, suppressing news of the outbreak has given credence to those claims.
I should add that the polio vaccination program in Nigeria hasn’t just withheld information about the vaccine-derived polio outbreak. It has routinely lied – flat-out lied – about whether the polio vaccine can give a vaccinee polio. The agencies managing the polio eradication effort track these cases; they write about them in MMWR and other professional publications. But when a Nigerian parent, journalist, or imam points out that a recently vaccinated child has come down with polio, the agencies (even as they test to see if this is a case of vaccine-acquired polio) routinely assert that the polio vaccine is absolutely safe, that the child must have been infected with the polio virus before getting vaccinated. They think this dishonesty is saving lives by protecting the credibility of the vaccination campaign. In the short term, they may be right. In the long term, it is costing lives by undermining the credibility of public health itself"
Please don't leave Jon! I don't know who it is, or if the person is even posting but I can tell you right now...its not one of the regulars getting us kicked off. Its some whineybutt that keeps clicking the "report a violation". He/she knows who he or she is and he or she needs to stop it! The regulars on this board want you here. I appreciate you being here and many more will say the same if asked...we really don't want you to leave. I am sorry for singling you out in the other post, I won't call you a pharmashill anymore but you need to stay...ya might learn something ;) but if you go, we'll all miss out.
We've always been able to be snide but friendly with each other through the years...but whomever is hitting that report button needs to seriously get a grip! It has been stated before, and we all know it - some of the posts being reported are VERY innocent.
Here's my statement in the last one that got reported:
"Jan-14 1:57 am "truth is that if more and more people choose not to vaccinate, there will be an increase in outbreaks of dangerous diseases." A person whose done his/her homework SURELY would have set out to prove that to him/herself. Try."
Now - does that sound like a post that should have gotten reported? No! And neither did the last of Jon's or Charlotte's so who ever is doing it, we don't agree with you! The only reason IV is doing this is simply because that report a violation button is being used.
Heck, if it helps - I'LL LEAVE FOR GOOD. Just let me know, whineybutt - is it me you want to get rid of? For the greater good of parents everywhere - we need to be able to debate without the whineybutts of the world poppin in to disrupt the board and then leaving after starting all this chaos. I get the impression its someone who's not even posting!!!
"In most cases I believe I was more moderated than many of the more passionate posters."
Even I agree with you there...and honestly I can say that I am the one with the *least* amount of tact...and I've gotten reported less than you have - since you've been here!
What does that tell us?
"is a diversionary tactic designed to cast doubt onto the research, review, surveillance and assessment of vaccine safety."
THE LACK OF SUCH STUDIES is a diversionary tactic designed to cast doubt onto the TRUTH of vaccine safety!!!