John,
I would like it very much if you would answer my questions on the posting of
Greg's comments to the SAVN page, and will this happen again with other
comments from this debate?
On the debating science thread you talk about Meryl's behaviour in harrassing grieving family members as disgusting, yet a
member of your own SAVN group did the same thing. If you go to this link
that was posted on the SAVN page just yesterday...
http://www.mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2012/02/02/The-armour-of-grief.aspx
Tasha
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
Quote from the article Greg has linked to.
In my opinion, the guy is a dangerous, nasty nutcase.
"I have always known pretty much how it all, the quackbuster consiracy, worked. Pretty much. It would have been nice, in the past, to have found one special place that wrote the checks, so to speak. For then it would have been an easy thing to mount one destructive assault, wiping that operation from the American scene. But it was never that way, or that easy, exactly.
What used to be isn't happening now. Certain parts of the quackbuster operation have always been self-funded, not meaning that some person put up their own money, but that certain people found "Expert Witness Fees" testifying in Court cases. Others, it became obvious, were being, and are being, paid for their activities "under the table," so to speak. "
Hi John,
Sorry for the late reply, I must admit I was really happy to see that you removed the link from your page, not because I found it offensive but because you felt it was contrary to the goals of the SAVN. To me this is a great example of finding the middle ground and if we can find a middle ground why can’t the SAVN and the AVN?
If the SAVN was to approach the AVN in a non combative and respectful way about the comments and information that they disagreed with, then the communication channels would not be shutdown. When people are attacked and ridiculed are they really open to criticism constructive or otherwise, especially from their attackers? Of course not, this is probably the first major hurdle to real discussion between these two groups. Now if we were to rectify this, would this not be a goal that would be beneficial for all concerned?
Take the situation that is happening at the moment, where Greg has released this data that the SAVN has interpreted differently to the AVN, how was this difference communicated to Greg? He was called an “innumerate dingbat” after which he was ripped to shreds for making a comment that was approved by the department. How different would it have been, if the person making the comments had simply said I disagree with the information presented, and this is why? The exchanging of views could have been done without any of the nastiness and Greg would not have had to take the high ground alone.
How much could be learned especially for the average joe like myself, if both sides were able to communicate and really discuss their different points of view, instead of the bickering we see now.
As for your view that Meryl can’t really feel that bullied, because you can not be strong and weak at the same time, I would have to disagree with this. Everybody is made up of strengths and weaknesses, the challenge has always been facing up to your weaknesses and not letting them prevent you from doing what is most important to you. This is what I feel Meryl has and continues to do, at her own personal expense.
Now to your question about Greg’s data, I find both notifications and protective effects interesting but both are still open to unquantified confounders, as stated by both Greg and Jason. I do see why you feel that this data actually supports your argument, but I personally would consider the high incidence of whooping cough and the high vaccination rates, as well as the mutation of the pertussis bacteria which we discussed on the pertussis thread more noteworthy.
Cheers
Tasha
Terms like "hate group" are subjective, derogatory and inappropriate for this debate site. Trying to demonise a group that argues against you/yours in this way demonstrates anything but a desire for open and constructive debate.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
I tried to reply to Meryl's "hate group" post. It turns out this is not allowed because her post no longer passes moderation so including it in my response has led to my post being denied. I'm not sure I follow the logic here but regardless, this was MY reply to her.
Projecting personal problems onto others is a trait demonstrated by nearly all anti-vax people I've encountered on this board. With the exception of Tasha; Christine, Tristan, Greg and now Meryl all appear to believe psych analysis of people's posts constitutes valid or useful contributions to discourse. The reality is, it doesn't. In fact, it's not only laughable, but (unsurprisingly) completely off the mark. Please try and stay on topic Meryl. Maybe even have a crack at approaching some of the real issues here. For instance, your misinterpretation of the pertussis data Greg posted on his website.
Hi John and all,
I know this has nothing to do with vaccination but I feel that it is important to the topic of the problems with the SAVN and AVN.
I just gave a talk yesterday about embracing people with special needs, (which is why I haven’t been around for awhile.) It was, as you know, a topic very close to my heart and something that I really wanted to get right. In it I had to tell people what they needed to do and not do, to accept these very special people. It could have been a very negative talk because there were so many ways that people in general were failing these people, but instead I started by trying to get them to understand the challenges that are faced by special needs people. After that I spoke about what they needed to change to make these very special people feel accepted and important, now because they were given an insight in to the world that special needs people live in everyday, they felt compassion towards them and this gave them the motivation to want to change and to take onboard the suggestions that I was making. Instantly you could see the change in these people’s eyes when they looked at my children and the other disabled people in the room, for the first time they really saw them as people worth investing some of their time and energy, instead of the usual avoidance or staring that they used to get. Then they started coming over and talking to them, and asking me about what they could do help include them more effectively. This is the change that is possible when you speak to people with respect and in this case love, but I don’t expect to feel the love on this forum, that is asking way too much!!! Lol!
Now what the heck has this got to do with the SAVN and the AVN you ask??? We let me tell you…
No one can learn anything or be motivated to make any changes when they are attacked, they need to understand why you are doing the things you are doing and likewise they need to feel like you are willing to try and understand why they are doing the things that they are doing, before you can even think about making corrections or suggestions. Once you do this, people’s defences come down, and they actually start really hearing you, and then change is possible.
John, you feel like Meryl is unwilling to make any changes or accept any criticisms but if you constantly attack her, how can she be anything but defensive. Her criticisms of you and the SAVN are based on the treatment she has received, not on the information you are trying to give to her. If correcting misinformation is the real goal, then respectful discussion is vital to the process. Other wise you end up just arguing AT each other, and it just goes round and round, both sides having their little stab at each other. Like I said before, the SAVN are not the only ones at fault in this breakdown in discussion, but they are at fault for the ridiculing, demeaning and persecution of the AVN, and also in their attempts to suppress Meryl’s right to free speech. If balancing the information is the priority, then this is only counterproductive.
See how defensive the response was when Meryl accused the SAVN of being a hate group, imagine how Meryl must feel when you call her a liar, idiot, hypocrite etc, does this make for anything other than a breeding ground for more negativity and animosity? You can disagree with someone without resorting to name-calling and disrespect, it is pointless and a real waste of energy!
You and I were able to discuss the SAVN and both admit to mistakes in judgement while still being respectful, this shows me that it is possible for people who don’t agree on controversial subjects like vaccination to still listen and learn, even though they still disagree. Another example was the way the whooping cough thread was going before the polarizing views on Greg’s data. There you saw people bringing information that the other side was not necessarily aware of, then being able to discuss the pros and cons reasonably and respectfully, isn’t this a goal worthy of us all pursuing?
Once again my two cents…
Cheers
Tasha