Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 14
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
Oct 27, '17Quote from FarawynAs for me crying bully. I have never been bullied by a nurse in my entire career. I am one of those who think the term is way overused, in fact. I also know from former topics, that the particular user who I addressed has experienced a lot of it. And I found it interesting she would use sparring words with another nurse. I'm not buying that the language and tone used towards BSN b. Done was out of collegial nurse to nurse correction.Please don't cry bullying because another nurse is correcting and trying to educate.
Oct 27, '17I was diagnosed with cervcial cancer after the birth of my fourth child. My biopsy listed two forms of cancer, one was a very fast growing cancer and the other was a slow one. As for the vaccine, I wish they had it when I was growing up as I may have had more children, or at least had a normal menopausal introduction. I had my daugher immunized and I pray she never has to go through hearing the words " you have cancer". All I could think of was not living long enough to see them grow up.
*this is sort of off track of the conspiracy theorist topic but I just wanted to make a statement. I keep seeing notes that cervcial cancer is slow growing - there are also fast types too.
Oct 27, '17Quote from KatieMISo your personal experience is more important than mine. Got it! I'm done here!I dare because I am immunosupressed person, and that happened because many years ago, one beautiful day, some mom back in Soviet Union decided to "use her rights" and not give her kid a shot to prevent measles, and so did my mom as well. I met that kid somewhere. The measles almost killed me, then left me with severe steroid-dependent asthma. If I catch flu for real, I have pretty good a chance to end up on vent - or worse.
With that, I still have enough immune system to get vaccinated. Many people don't, and I will be like that one day. I know it. I will be relaying on the mercy and social consciousness of others around me. And I am pretty scared with the idea that once my life might be in hand of someone who, after passing what is considered to be the most rigorous scientific-based course in the World for nurses, taking Board exams and getting licence to practice nursing, still not have enough understanding of basics of science about how human body works and respect for fellow human beings to risk my life because some poorly-based and gazillion-times debunked "beliefs" which he or she deems as "freedom of choice". Their "freedom of choice" shouldn't be my, or anyone else's death sentence.
If you really that much concerned about it, there are tons of doctor's offices and HHCs where flu shots are still not mandatory. I know it absolutely for sure.
Oct 27, '17I would agree there is nothing unscientific about questioning what we think we know, the basis of science is to challenge the currently accepted balance of facts with better data which then leads to better conclusions. The problem is that it seems the majority of vaccine-skepticism purposefully avoids the facts and data, which is why it's typically characterized as being reckless and irresponsible.
The degree to which compliance with influenza vaccinations should be promoted and even required certainly should be based on a high threshold of significant benefit vs minimal risk, but it would appear the vaccine meets that threshold, the vaccine prevents thousands of deaths per year, it prevents 60,000 to 120,000 hospitalizations per year, the number of deaths proven to be caused the current purified forms of the vaccine is zero, so my question to those are skeptical of the degree to which the vaccine is promoted and required, what sort of numbers do you think are required to justify current use of the vaccine?
Oct 27, '17Quote from WestCoastSunRNOK, I guess I initially misunderstood both you and the post you're talking about. As I've stated repeatedly, I wish all conversations with parents about vaccines could be respectful enough that it would nudge more of them to vaccinate, so that strong-arming policies like these weren't necessary. But I also understand where those policies come from---it's a not an inherent desire to impose a "nanny state" or "Big Brother watching" or any other nonsense like that spewed by conspiracy theorists. It's because, and I know I sound like a broken record here, public health is at stake.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.
Oct 27, '17Quote from LibraSunCNMI hear you, and I guess what I don't know, and what I'm not sure any of us know, is what the true threshold is for a public outbreak of something that was all but eradicated. Would adjusting the CDC schedule satisfy people who are in the camp of indecision with regard to vaccines? I think, for instance, taking mercury out of kid vaccines generally made people feel they are safer --- even if it was a scapegoat of sorts.OK, I guess I initially misunderstood both you and the post you're talking about. As I've stated repeatedly, I wish all conversations with parents about vaccines could be respectful enough that it would nudge more of them to vaccinate, so that strong-arming policies like these weren't necessary. But I also understand where those policies come from---it's a not an inherent desire to impose a "nanny state" or "Big Brother watching" or any other nonsense like that spewed by conspiracy theorists. It's because, and I know I sound like a broken record here, public health is at stake.
I don't know. I usually find that solutions lay in finding middle ground, somehow. And I think we all have to be very honest about our approach. I've read anecdotal accounts from all sides of the issue in this thread, for instance, but we all know that doesn't count as evidence that can be applied to the masses. We say we know that, but then we tell our personal story of how we or someone we know was harmed by vaccines, or harmed by not getting vaccines. We do that because we are human and we can't divorce ourselves from our own personal experiences and bias very easily. Understanding we all share that common quality should make it easier, not harder, to have these discussions. And in that spirit people could be educated instead of mandated. Perfect world. I know.
Oct 27, '17Quote from WestCoastSunRN1. It is technically safe to administer all the vaccines together at one time. The amount of fluid and the number of needle sticks are the limiting factor as far as safety goes.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.
2. There are still vaccines with mercury in them.
3. Links to autoimmune diseases and vaccines have been disproven over and over.
4. These are supposed to be well educated hcps on here not patients. No one on here is advocating physically restraining people to vaccinate the general public, but when people willfully make decisions that can and will effect everyone's health around them then the public has an obligation to pass laws to protect public from willfull disease vectors.
5. We have tens of millions of dollars spent on educating the public about the need to be vaccinated. People that choose not to be vaccinated for non medical reasons choose conspiracy sites to get their information and nothing you explain to a person that is truly anti vaccination is going to make difference at that point.
Oct 27, '17Quote from BSNbeDONEA persons rights end when that persons decision has the ability to effect everyone else. Typhoid Mary comes to mind.There again, I am going by what they said and if they want to get tested, it is their right. I have never told them NOT to get the flu shot. I do not force my beliefs on anyone else. My whole argument is that this mandate in impeding on MY rights. If you guys want to take the flu shot or any other vaccination for that matter, knock yourselves out. But why do you have to force someone else to get on your bandwagon? That is all that I am saying.
Not everyone has the same train of thought as healthcare workers and there are many laypersons that are healthier than healthcare providers. So why the mandate? Most people know how to take care of themselves. In my opinion, people are too quick to pop a pill or a needle for any little thing that pops up. I don't suffer from anxiety. But I see no one forcing me to take Xanax as a prevention because of its effectiveness, in order to keep a grip on the stressors of acute care nursing.
People have rights. Who are you or I or anyone to choose what rights get taken away? Do any ONE of you guys argue or debate with your patients about this injection the way that it is done among nurses? I'm certain you do not. You simply do your required patient teaching, give them the handouts, and leave the decision to accept or refuse up to them. But you do not have that same respect for your colleagues. The % of effectiveness is the same for the healthcare providers as it is for the lawyer, or the judge, or the President, or the governor, or any other non-healthcare individual. But no one forces this vaccine on them. Go figure...
For me, it is all about the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. How dare any of you look negatively on anyone who has a different opinion than yourselves? Nothing about healthcare is fool-proof. This flu vaccine debate is among healthcare professionals only, I'm sure, because everyone else can refuse the darn thing, without debate or discussion.
If I get a 60-ish% on any one of my nursing courses, it is an automatic failure. It is the same in all of our educational systems in this country. If a school has a 60% NCLEX success rate, students tend to look elsewhere. So, why are we so onboard with this as an acceptable result for MANDATORY administration? If you want to give or receive it, do so. But to MANDATE it when these percentages are rarely acceptable in most all other aspects of our lives is rather hypocritical to me.
Oct 27, '17Quote from FolksBtrippinThere is no criteria for the average citizen to get the flu vaccine, but for some reason most patients seem to not want to get the flu from their hcps. Most of those patients expect that their nurses/hcps will follow state and federal healthcare guidelines including getting the flu vaccine.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.
Oct 27, '17Quote from wtbcrnaI think it's important not to overstate the evidence since this is often how conspiracy believers are born. While there are numerous recommendations and legal requirements out there, there has yet to be reliable evidence to support these recommendations and requirements.There is no criteria for the average citizen to get the flu vaccine, but for some reason most patients seem to not want to get the flu from their hcps. Most of those patients expect that their nurses/hcps will follow state and federal healthcare guidelines including getting the flu vaccine.
Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 6 or older living in long-term care institutions | Cochrane
Oct 27, '17Quote from WestCoastSunRNAssuming we are all on somewhat the same page as RNs, and not speaking to lay people, I think the tone, peer to peer, is more than appropriate, and much more restrained than other years.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
Chiding people doesn't help, either.
Oct 27, '17Quote from BSNbeDONEWait...don't go!So your personal experience is more important than mine. Got it! I'm done here!
You forgot to post even ONE article stating you can get flu from the flu vaccine!!!
Oct 27, '17Quote from MunoRNDo you know why Cochrane came to that conclusion? "High quality randomised controlled trials testing combinations of these interventions are needed." Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 6 or older living in long-term care institutions | CochraneI think it's important not to overstate the evidence since this is often how conspiracy believers are born. While there are numerous recommendations and legal requirements out there, there has yet to be reliable evidence to support these recommendations and requirements.
Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 6 or older living in long-term care institutions | Cochrane
How many IRBs do you think would be willing to approve a large RCT that the intervention has already shown to save lives. Influenza Vaccination Information for Health Care Workers | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC