Thursday, November 21, 2013

This is the thing about being an a**hole

tell me how you really feel.  just kidding I don't need to know

First a story:
In 2006 the first winter I was a Texan, I helped out at the Stake's Nativity Exhibit. That was way more intense than I had expected but I loved it. I liked the "doing" of it, church is usually so much listening but this was "doing" I spent loooooong days rubbing shoulders with cool ladies decorating and more decorating and we put out HUNDREDS of Nativity scenes. The only frustrating part was that there was a lot of wasted effort and time. See it was arranged that people worked on sections - The wooden ones, the white porcelain, the international, the children's... And then when all were set up the big jobs of putting out poinsettias, sweeping, lighting ALL the sections with nativities, etc. could happen. But sections had to be done first and there were vast differences in the efficiency that some people worked on their sections. One night went till after 1 am because a section was "just not right" to a particular individual.

The next year I was asked to be chairperson for the entire event. My ONE admonition from those who called me to do it was to make an effort to be more aware of the time commitments people were making to this 2.5 day event. I held less meetings, delegated more, and when the time came made it clear that sections were to have "teams" and time was of the essence!

Second day of decorating and the section of white porcelain nativity sets were only 1/4 out while others were nearing 3/4ths of the way. Then just before dinner the person in charge of her team decided since she had done this section EVERY year since the inception of this event .. once again things "did not look right" And suddenly without discussion, took every single nativity set back down.

Frustration mounting, I stood in the vast cultural hall, and just observed. Every section was nearing completion while the white nativities were starting from scratch. I mustered all the niceness I could and begged: Can we please get EVERYBODY working on this section and just get them up? Then the next steps can happen and maybe we can be home before 9:00.

"No. She said. I have a vision for this section it has to be a certain way. I can't have all these other hands involved."

She continued at same pace as before. Others started standing around. They couldn't leave. I needed them for the lights and the netting and the sweeping.

She meanwhile stood back rubbing her chin contemplating the placement of every single sheep, Mary and Joseph, then asked for different music to play over the speakers. I again asked if we could help.

"nope I'm ok"

sigh....

After 7:00 she had to leave to run an errand. And the asshole in me that was too chicken to intervene in her presence was ready to act. Chairperson from the previous year said: "We can get these all up while she is gone."

DONE.

In 40 minutes, the Nativity section was complete.

45 minutes after that, she returned to us lighting and netting the entire place, on our way to almost getting to leave before 11 pm. She was livid and cried and yelled. And people all let the blame fall to me. I had callously took away her 'area' that she had worked so hard on.

I, in the end, was the asshole and the next morning missed another important event so I could have an apology meeting with her and church leaders, over her feelings.

But we finished ahead of schedule AND almost a dozen women got home to their families sooner.

Was I wrong? I don't know. I sort of don't care. 

I have thought about this a lot lately. There seems to be this notion as social media progresses that we are less kind to one another. I disagree.

Sure there are the offensive memes, tribalism political rants, and "look at them aren't they so stupid" statements. But me? I'm the often misunderstood asshole. I like to read and read and read, and I admittedly obsess over any topic that so interests me at the time. I've had my birth obsessions, health at every size, breastfeeding, religious rants, atheist rants, etc. I am that person who can genuinely debate a topic with you and STILL like you. I usually think I am right. I mean why would I think I was wrong and continue thinking that way? I rarely see 'both' sides as being valid. I want a good answer to questions and when I think I have found it I share it. Some see a kindness problem. I see a sensitivity problem. Its the marketplace of ideas. Put yours out there.

There was a Penn Jillette podcast where he was complaining about the tone of Phil Plait's lecture at some skeptic event. His position was that skeptics needed to be nicer, no one was ever convinced by being argued with. NOT SO said Penn. I have been convinced by people arguing with me all the time. If my position is stupid, tell me. Be authentic for me. If you are a dick. Be a dick.

I haven't been able to get it out of my head. If you are a dick. Be a dick. I don't think I am a dick necessarily. I am a know it all, I'm obnoxious. I like to debate, I like to play devils advocate, I like to think about things well past the constraints of normal, and I change my mind often. If I am wrong tell me, if you are wrong I might tell you. Now people who profess kindness but readily shun others, deal entirely in passive aggression, question your motives above your content - I have a short fuse for that.

I will do anything to help you if I can.  If you need it you can have the shirt off my back. I'll bring you dinner, I'll pick you up at the airport, I'll laugh with you, cry with you, and if you are up for it I'll argue with you.

So am I kind? Am I not? I don't know,  authenticity means much more to me. I'm too old and life is too short for me to not be myself. I am lucky in that I have a good sense of self and I am loved. My mom loves me to the ends of the earth. She raised me well and argued with me along the way and still will, but it has no bearing on how we feel about each other. My husband loves me, we can debate politics, talk philosophy make love and go to sleep. I have six kids who cuddle with me every single day. My sister and I face time during our bubble baths and NO topic is off limits. So maybe I am loved enough to afford to argue on the internetz. If something is important to me I will tell you about it.

Don't hate me for it. But if you do hate me for it. Its ok. I promise its ok. If you need anything I will still do my best to help you.

PS. Guess who has two thumbs and has been invited to write for Skepchick grounded parents blog?

THIS ASSHOLE, that's who!

Sunday, November 10, 2013

A crunchy mom's reversal on vaccinations.



I was mainstream. Then I had a bad hospital birth. Next birth I questioned everything and planned a homebirth. That started a period where I was leary of ANY intervention by the medical community. Add to that my son's terrible experience with circumcision and my subsequent intactivism that made me sure I didn't trust anyone especially traditional doctors!

My sixth baby got very close to her first birthday not having seen any pediatrician. I was very proud of that fact. I wasn't necessarily "anti-vax" I was just... done. I got Dr. Sears book, I read some online resources against the popular wisdom of vaccinations and it made sense to me.

Then at about the same time two things happened. I "found" an instagram friend. I think through plus size babywearing tagging but I'm not positive. She was a tattoo'd babywearing mom of two with backyard chickens and her pics helped me relate to her. Until one day she posted about the vaccine conference she was attending...

blink, blink.

Crunchy moms don't vaccinate! So I read her 'about' section and she described her parenting as "evidenced based parenting" And that she was a doctoral candidate, vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins. I was like hmmmmph (picture hands on hips with emphasis). But I kept an open mind.

THEN I decided to attend a lecture about vaccines by a Chiropractor. I can't remember all the details but I felt two overarching themes: fear and lack of scientific literacy. The biggest red flag was when he said germ theory was just a 'theory' he used air quotes, and the latent science major in me was like AAAHHHH in scientific terms, 'theory' means fact.
Even though I was hesitant to vaccinate my kids - I was not about to throw vaccines under the proverbial bus. I knew that the dramatic decrease in Polio was not only related to sanitation.

SO after a while my ultimate rejection of doctors and vaccines caused me some mental hiccups and I decided I would really dive into the research. My goal would be to arrive at a decision that could be defended with no logical fallacies. The most common in the antivaccine literature is anecdotal, appeal to emotion(fear), cherry picking data, and middle of the road.

The ultimate conclusion? The scientific consensus supports vaccinations.
The standards for vaccines are rigorous. The schedule is safe and is to support the best immune response at the most appropriate ages to prevent disease. The resurgence of diseases we are seeing (and yes those numbers are still low) are due to the increase of non-vaccinating families and undervaccination by alternate schedules.
I learned vaccine researchers, whose research funding comes from various sources not just "big pharma" have to show their multiple trials, evidence and undergo demanding peer review, while Dr. Tenpenny, Mercola can just make statements with no evidence to back their claims. The vaccine schedule is thoroughly reviewed while Dr. Sears just makes up a new schedule - no research, no evidence to back it up.

There needs to be sensitivity to the fears of vaccine injury yet perspective as well. My schooling and career before I was a stay at home mom was as an occupational therapist. It is a heartbreaking process to test and diagnose developmental delays. Often the time frame age wise is congruent with vaccines. Therefore very many reports of vaccine reactions and injuries result. But correlation is not causation.

The research has been done! Ever since Dr. Wakefield with fraudulent methods suggested the connection between autism and vaccines, this theory has been volleyed about. The science has shown over and over and over again there is no connection between vaccines and autism.

There is also the vaccine reaction vs. injury. One can have a reaction and it not be a vaccine injury. Red spots, fussiness, fever, and even febrile seizure are reactions that don't automatically equate to vaccine injury or any lasting damage. There are vaccine injuries. Doctors should be up to date on vaccine research and not vaccinate anyone with contraindications. But like most decisions in life, it is a risk benefit analysis and the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Vaccines have improved greatly even since we were kids. They have less antigens than ever. The combo vaccines elicit a better immune response with less injections. The aluminum salt (yes aluminum salt) in vaccines is in similar rates to the aluminum salt that appears in our food environmentally EVEN in breastmilk and is such low rates they are easily processed by the body, even by infants.

On the other hand, every day we are a more "global" society. And these diseases are virulent and dangerous.

I do sympathize with vaccine fears. I do know the mentality to be against them, I have empathy for that position. I have become quite fascinated with the method of thinking on this issue. Are the positions raised by antivaccine proponents intellectually honest? Are online gurus that espouse views against vaccines but then suggest their supplements to boost immunity not also working under conflict of interest? Is the data in support of vaccines given fair merit?

Vaccines are counter-intuitive, so this makes it a hard issue to depend on mother's instinct. Why inject an antigen into your child? It does make reason stare. Think of it as a doctor. You see sick kid after sick kid after sick kid... think of a better treatment for them or even better! a way to help them NEVER get sick. That is the concept of vaccination - the ultimate preventative medicine. Vaccines have been around since the 1700s. We are starting to reject a science while it has made our lives longer and decreased suffering.

Herd immunity is not a myth and it is not a bad thing. If there were no kids on crutches at your kid's bus stop this morning, thank herd immunity for that. We are on the cusp of global eradication of Polio. Then we won't vaccinate for it anymore.

The choice to not vaccinate does increase your child's risk, your family's risk and the community's risk. It is important to give ample time to credible sources about vaccines.  I think crunchy moms are a great group willing to really look at the evidence and for starters to not be at all afraid to stand up and say: Our family is vaccinated.


Vaccine Science:

Herd immunity is NOT a myth.





The vaccine ingredients are safe.







Not too many too soon. The vaccine schedule is safe.









An alternative schedule increases your child's risk. (and increases needle anxiety with spread out schedule.)



On credibility of sources: Developing a keen sense of the credibility of sources, based on such clues as connection of author to the subject, audience, source of publication, and documentation of supporting evidence,  can also help you evaluate print and other types of sources.  Though  many search engines rank material according to their idea of what is relevant, that doesn't mean the material is relevant to want you want or  is reliable. These guidelines are to help you become familiar with various types of Web resources and the reliability of the information. 
1. Is there any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field about which she or he is providing information? What are the author's qualifications, credentials and connections to the subject? 
2. With what organization or institution is the author associated? Is there a link to the sponsoring organization, a contact number and/or address or e-mail contact? A link to an association does not necessarily mean that the organization approved the content. 
3. Does the author have publications in peer reviewed (scholarly and professional) publications, on the Web or in hard copy? (If an author does not have peer reviewed articles published, this does not mean that she or he does not have credible information, only that there has been no professional "test" of the author's authority on that subject.) 
4. Are there clues that the author/s are biased? For example, is he/she selling or promoting a product? Is the author taking a personal stand on a social/political issue or is the author being objective ? Bias is not necessarily "bad," but the connections should be clear. 
5. Is the Web information current? If there are a number of out-of-date links that do not work or old news, what does this say about the credibility of the information?
6. Does the information have a complete list of works cited, which reference credible, authoritative sources? If the information is not backed up with sources, what is the author's relationship to the subject to be able to give an "expert" opinion? 
7. Can the subject you are researching be fully covered with WWW sources or should print sources provide balance? Much scholarly research is still only available in traditional print form. It is safe to assume that if you have limited background in a topic and have a limited amount of time to do your research, you may not be able to get the most representative material on the subject. So be wary of making unsupportable conclusions based on a narrow range of sources. 
8. On what kind of Web site does the information appear? The site can give you clues about the credibility of the source. http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm

Reliable & accurate:









Unreliable with inaccuracies:





Top Ten worst sites: