Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 13

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true.... Read More

  1. by   Farawyn
    Quote from hherrn
    " I'm against being forced to take it by holding my job over my head."
    "Here lately, I've been forced to take the shot or find another job. Why are people so eager to take away another's right to choose?"


    It is not unusual for individual rights to conflict with each other, and for policies and laws to be made by weighing the impact on certain decisions. Since the best evidence available shows that if you do not get the flu shot you put patients in jeopardy, it would be irresponsible for the hospital to allow you to forgo the immunization, based on your personal beliefs.

    You have the absolute right to believe what you want. You do not have the absolute right to act on those beliefs. I have the right to believe that my postman is a dangerous outer space creature. I don't have the right to kill him, even though I KNOW he threatens our beloved planet earth.

    What if I believe that hand washing is dangerous to me? Sure, the CDC says it is critical for patient safety, but I can cite multiple incidents where "experts" are wrong. This agenda is being pushed by Big Soap. You can't deny my right to believe this nonsense, but you can sure as hell fire me for not complying with an evidenced based policy.

    "Do you guys tell them that the vaccine did what it was supposed to do? That we ‘gave' them the flu"

    Well, I don't tell them that because it is not true, and would show me to be shamefully ignorant.

    You cite some anecdotal evidence for your beliefs. Anecdotal evidence is a powerful thing. Talk to somebody who was thrown from an automobile just before it exploded. And this only happened because they were not wearing a seat belt. This person will be disinclined to believe in the safety of seat belts.

    Lots of articles about the strength of anecdotal evidence.

    The reason for this cognitive disconnect is that we have evolved brains that pay attention to anecdotes because false positives (believing there is a connection between A and B when there is not) are usually harmless, whereas false negatives (believing there is no connection between A and B when there is) may take you out of the gene pool.

    I think that a big part of the reaction you get hear is that many here believe that good nursing is based on evidence based practices.
    You had me at Big Soap.
  2. by   hherrn
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    Exactly.

    Why the forcing? Power, greed, controlling the populace. And yes, this flu shot business is only the tip of the iceberg wih regard to Big Brother and his tentacles.
    Kooky-
    With all that this thread has wandered, you have been the most consistent in answering the OP's actual question:
    Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally?

    In the spirit of distinguishing anecdotal evidence from actual evidence, I will not claim that your responses answer the question definitively. But, you do certainly provide a data point.

    Just curious- do you have any sense of the irony of your response to this question?
  3. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from Farawyn
    You had me at Big Soap.
    Me too!!!
  4. by   KatieMI
    Quote from Farawyn
    You had me at Big Soap.
    Count me in, too! Spoiled my new $80 pants on it
  5. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from KatieMI
    I just afraid to imagine now how these nurses can treat a science-smart new grad dreaming of a CRNA or NP program. Truly, anti-intellectualism is becoming a sad reality of American nursing.
    Wow. Katie, aren't you often decrying lateral violence in nursing? But you have no problem calling out fellow nurses as idiots in a public (albeit anonymous) forum. And do you not think "science smart" nurses also stay at the bedside? They do, actually. And I'm willing to bet they can hold their own in discussing facts about vaccines or any other issue.
    I agree that the poster who is thinks the flu vaccine gave her family the flu is incorrect. But the responses to her are juvenile at best and condescending and alienating at worst.
  6. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    It's dangerous when anyone stops thinking for her/himself. Most of what I have read in these pages of comments from those who have been labeled as "antivaccine" (and now "antiscience") represents people asking questions, and people being very cautious about having all the answers for an entire population. On the other side you have folks in this thread who are willing to do everything but physically restrain people to get vaccines into them. This is with the notion that doing so will protect the innocent. This argument, interestingly, shares the same logic as those who are anti-abortion for the sake of protecting unborn babies.
    In fact this entire thread is making for a fascinating mini-sociological experiment -- though I doubt that was the OP's intention.

    One poster's religious views have been mentioned (sometimes with not well-veiled disgust), and yet there is religious-like devotion behind the defense of science here that I, personally, find just as distracting to the conversation at hand. Good science is about asking questions and testing theories and NEVER EVER being afraid your hypothesis is wrong. Medicine is an inexact science. Doctor's know this, nurses know this --- we have years upon years of scientific discovery to prove it! Science is not some infallible god. It is an amoral tool. And thus far, that tool has given us good and bad. I would count vaccines in the 'good' category, for sure.

    But does anyone really think that we know everything there is to know about vaccines and immunology at this point in 2017? We have 200 years of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective? Really? Do we? In what way? How many vaccines can be given together and still be safe and effective? How many, total, can a human body sustain in a lifetime without injury? How do auto-immune conditions effect vaccine safety? Are all auto-immune conditions the same when considering vaccine safety? Why was mercury taken out of vaccines? Because the CDC was strong-armed? Then why shouldn't we put it back? It would be far more cost-effective than using single-dose vials. There are lot's of "why"s a person can and should ask as we go forward with creating new vaccines and mandating them.

    We take brand-new, healthy humans and begin injecting substances into them immediately after birth. We had better have damn good reasons for doing so, followed by equally good methods of educating and advocating for patients. Are we really going to take offense at people who question that? Are we really going to respond with defensiveness and name-calling?

    Like it or lump it, we are no longer in the age of "doctor know's best". People get their information from all sorts of places these days -- but do remember that your "educated" anti-vaxxers may very well have read the same peer - reviewed literature you have read -- and still have questions. Also vaccine injuries happen. Maybe not often, but if it happens to YOUR kid, then it matters to you. And that's no more fear-mongering talk than the talk about disease epidemics if we don't force every human to get vaccinated by controlling their food and water supply.

    How we talk about things matters.
    Ok, hold on a second. I realize this thread is going off on a few different tangents, but your statements are untrue. The entire point of my own posts (I can't speak for others) was to stress that asking questions about vaccines SHOULDN'T be discouraged, and that more open discourse between parents and health professionals could possibly improve vaccination rates. Most of the other posters have agreed with me. At no point in this thread has anyone suggested forcibly restraining anyone to achieve vaccination.

    Additionally, no one has stated that 1.) all vaccines are 100% effective. 2.) vaccine reactions don't exist. 3.) we know everything in the world there is to know about vaccines and their possible side effects 4.) scientific discovery doesn't change over time 5.) medicine is an exact science 6.) as such, health professionals are infallible.

    What pro-vaccine folks believe, in general, is that with the information that we have scientifically collected thus far about vaccines, the public health benefits to vaccines greatly outweigh the risks. And anti-vaccine folks who believe otherwise, for whatever reason are endangering public health. If posters seem "religiously" fervent about vaccinations, it's not just to be contrary. And there has been just as much "disgust" from posters injecting personal religious beliefs into the conversation about posters who take a scientific view, as vice versa. There's no need to play the martyr.
  7. by   Farawyn
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    Wow. Katie, aren't you often decrying lateral violence in nursing? But you have no problem calling out fellow nurses as idiots in a public (albeit anonymous) forum. And do you not think "science smart" nurses also stay at the bedside? They do, actually. And I'm willing to bet they can hold their own in discussing facts about vaccines or any other issue.
    I agree that the poster who is thinks the flu vaccine gave her family the flu is incorrect. But the responses to her are juvenile at best and condescending and alienating at worst.
    She's a BSN who is expressing an opinion on a professional public board. She is refuting science. BASIC science: You cannot get the flu from the flu shot.

    I think the disagreement and disbelief is appropriate.

    Please don't cry bullying because another nurse is correcting and trying to educate.
  8. by   FolksBtrippin
    Quote from BostonFNP
    What makes you think that vaccines are not overwhelmingly safe or effective? Please share your sources.
    I didnt say I think vaccines are not overwhelmingly safe or effective.

    Although I would say that the flu shot is not overwhelmingly effective. Because it isnt.

    Anyway that's not my point.

    My point is: I don't think we are meeting moral criteria for overriding individual choice when it comes to the flu shot for an average citizen.
  9. by   Farawyn
    Quote from FolksBtrippin
    I didnt say I think vaccines are not overwhelmingly safe or effective.

    Although I would say that the flu shot is not overwhelmingly effective. Because it isnt.

    Anyway that's not my point.

    My point is: I don't think we are meeting moral criteria for overriding individual choice when it comes to the flu shot for an average citizen.
    What of the choices of the immunosupressed, the elderly, the infants? Our patients? They have none. They are much more susceptible to flu.
    Shouldn't we as healthy, educated individuals morally make the choice TO get the shot?

    It's not about what you want, if you are going the moral route. It's about our responsibilities to others-
    as health care workers and human beings.
  10. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from BSNbeDONE
    So now, you are suggesting that what I an seeing is not happening in my own family and that I go against my mom's wishes by reconsidering having her injected with something that she has refused since they developed this stuff? What happened to being a patient advocate? What if I suggest that you and your family STOP taking it because taking this one doesn't prevent the flu; they simply HOPE that it does? Will you reconsider your viewpoint? What makes what you think about this more important than what I think about it? Because they tested people? Do you know any of the participants? Or are you simply taking their word because of course, they are people and they would not deceive you in any manner?
    I am simply stating facts. It is impossible to get influenza from the inactivated influenza vaccine. How were your family members diagnosed with influenza after receiving the shots?

    Quote from BSNbeDONE
    If you are embarrassed that I have a mind of my own and will NEVER agree to EVERYTHING that is presented as evidenced, that is YOUR RIGHT. Anyone can see that what is evidence today, can turn out to be BS tomorrow.
    It is difficult to be a nurse and never agree with evidence.
  11. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    We take brand-new, healthy humans and begin injecting substances into them immediately after birth. We had better have damn good reasons for doing so, followed by equally good methods of educating and advocating for patients.
    You don't think there is "damn good reasons"/evidence to vaccinate children?

    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    Like it or lump it, we are no longer in the age of "doctor know's best". People get their information from all sorts of places these days -- but do remember that your "educated" anti-vaxxers may very well have read the same peer - reviewed literature you have read -- and still have questions.
    This has been born out in the literature. I posted a link a few pages ago that shows parents that don't vaccinate are far more likely to "do their research" on social media and trust bloggers on the internet over those who are trained experts in the field. From professional experience, very few have read any legitimate scientific studies.
  12. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from FolksBtrippin

    Force takes many forms. Threatening to cut off a person's employment or income counts as force. As does prohibiting school.

    Using force is justified only when you are very certain that it will benefit the community and also very certain that it will not cause harm to the individual. Then you have moral grounds with which to use force.

    My problem with using force on the flu shot is that we don't know what getting it 80 times over the course of a lifetime will do to people and we do know that flu doesn't usually kill healthy people. It does kill sick people, so maybe it is justifiable to use force for healthcare workers-- as in take your shot or don't come to work, don't get paid.

    But for folks not working in healthcare I don't think force is justified with regards to the flu shot. It's a vaccine people are expected to get every year. We don't know what effect, if any that has over a lifetime yet.

    In 100 years when we have evidence that giving flu shots to a person every year from ages 3 to 100 did not cause undue harm to that person, then we will have moral grounds to use force.

    I think gardasil is also one where using force is not justified for similar reasons. It hasn't been around long enough. Gardasil is a weaker case against force then the flu shot, because we aren't expected to get it every year.

    With proven, older vaccines that prevent devastating illness like polio, I think we are justified in straight up forcing people to comply. Not like, hold a person down and put a needle in him, but definitely keeping kids out of school, and maybe even cutting off income.

    .
    Libra
    Here are some of the quotes about using force. As I said, force short of holding a person down. And this response above, I believe, was in reference to the article about Australia mandating vaccines by cutting off government funds to people. So yes, this discussion has gone into some serious considerations of what mandates could look like. My point in bringing that up is that it is a strong arm approach, to say the least. It promotes fear-mongering in a whole different way than the anti-vaxx arguments do.
    Last edit by WestCoastSunRN on Oct 27, '17 : Reason: addressed wrong user
  13. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from BostonFNP
    You don't think there is "damn good reasons"/evidence to vaccinate children?



    This has been born out in the literature. I posted a link a few pages ago that shows parents that don't vaccinate are far more likely to "do their research" on social media and trust bloggers on the internet over those who are trained experts in the field. From professional experience, very few have read any legitimate scientific studies.
    Well yes, I DO think there is damn good evidence to vaccinate kids. My point --- my entire point -- in anything I have said is that how we talk about things matters. I think this whole thread is a perfect illustration of how to get people to NOT listen to you. Throwing peer reviewed articles at people isn't enough. We have to do better. We have to meet people where they are at and go from there. I'm sure your literature you posted is correct about how people make their decisions today based on social media. I agree with you! Are fear-mongering and government mandates the best way to answer that challenge? When you say yes, because you think people are just going to be stupid no matter what (I don't mean you personally, Boston) you create a bigger divide. Just my .02

close