Anti-vaccination sites

[Horse with no Name]

Just in case someone tries to source these sites as legitimate. Amazing how some of these sound so "official" and very close to the counterparts. It seems they deliberately try to confuse fact with rhetoric ie Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Academy of American Physicians and Surgeons).
I believe I have seen some of these sourced in the past few days.:eyes:


http://www.vaclib.org/links/vaxlinks.htm

[keepCAblue]

1. Are you claiming all these sites are not legitimate?

There are a number of references on this site that appear quite legitimate. Dr. Richard Pitcairn for example. And if you're suggesting that anyone who questions the necessity or safety of certain vaccination protocols is not legitimate, then I'd have to question your motive and position as well.

Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes, as many do, with evidence to support it, that there is a link between autism and childhood vaccinations, due to the presence of thimerosol in so many vaccine formulae. And those of us who closely follow veterinary medicine are acutely aware of the link between pet vaccines and numerous cancers, disease states and adverse reactions.

Your post is very confusing and possibly even misleading, to suggest that all of the sites--and, hence, medical information--listed on the webpage in question are not legitimate. Please clarify your post for those among us, like myself, who are left sitting here scratching our heads.

P.S., there appears to be no "Academy of American Physicians and Surgeons" as you've stated. I google it and came up with zero results. There is an "Academy of American Family Physicians" but this is hardly a "close fit" to the "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons," which you referenced. The aforementioned is an association formed in 1943 which is comprised of conservative medical professionals; this is a legitimate organization--whether you agree with their philosophies or not--and does not appear to be attempting to steal credibility by closely naming themselves after the "legitimate" counterpart you suggested (considering there is no such counterpart, at least not in terms of nomenclature or association title).

[Katherine Brengle]

2. I think the point was that those sites all identified as "anti-vaccination" and

not objective.

Any site that claims to be blatantly for or against something can't exactly be trusted for 100% accurate information.

Just as the Merck website cannot be used as support for the vaccine, a clearly anti-vaccination website is not a credible source.

[keepCAblue]

5. Sorry...don't agree

There is a huge anti-vaccine movement in this country and abroad, due to the overwhelming evidence pointing to safety and health risks.

Beyond this, the "anti-vaccine links" label is simply the title of the webpage the website creator applied to the heading. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the content contained in the links that are contained on the website which posted them. If you click on some of the links, you'll find the content, in the majority of cases, is in no way stating that ALL vaccines are bad. The links are mostly to sites which discuss the merits or question the safety of particular vaccines, like the thimerosol-containing vaccines or the vaccines shown to cause Feline Fibrosarcoma. There are some highly legitimate links on this page which reference credible research findings.

I seriously doubt the author of this website who collected the links for this "anti-vaccine links" page was intentionally tyring to confuse or mislead anyone. He or she probably has no idea that the "Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" is a right-wing conservative association of medical professionals. The creator of this page is simply putting together a page of links which point to further resources on the question of vaccine safety. That the OP declared ALL the links on this page were not legitimate simply because of one suspect link, is highly unfair and irresponsible.

[Horse with no Name]

6. Hmmm I find it "amusing"

that you ask me what "I" meant, and "I" respond...yet you ignore my response and post to someone else.
Nuts if you asked me...but I guess the truth of the matter is that you would just rather piss and moan than address the issue.

[Horse with no Name]

3. I am simply reading what the site says

I found it through a google of vaccination sites. It said "anti-vaccine sites" just as I listed.
I had no desire to trip through all of the sites...I cannot vouch for what each site dictates.
HOWEVER, if you use a source to back up an argument, it is wise to know what slant the source has.
If they are against ALL vaccines...then you expect that rhetoric.
The same with Right Wing sources--we know what to expect with Drudge, etc and how it is slanted.

I have read the Kennedy evidence and it is compelling. It is so compelling, I believe, that thimerisol certainly deserves a second look at in the vaccinations.
I don't believe that is tinfoil at all.
However, when I get directed to a site that dictates that women shouldn't do self breast exams or have mammograms, etc...that is a little loopy for my taste.

I am not adverse to reading other ideas and opinions as long as it as marked as such. However, I don't want opinions sold as science.
This is just a guideline so you can differentiate what is what.

[Warpy]

4. I've pointed quite a few of those out over the last few days

not that it's done much good. Some people are simply wedded to the idea that any vaccination out there is dangerous to their children and want them banned for all children.

This mindset is aided by the fact that these people have never experienced those "usual childhood illnesses" and don't realize they are all potential killers.

Cagey renaming of reputable organizations as fronts for antivaccination hysteria groups is just part of the whole deal.

Antivaccination sites are not legitimate sites. Drug company sites are occasionally not legitimate sites. Search elsewhere for the truth.