Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 18

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   KatieMI
    Quote from MunoRN
    I would agree that we could say that it can be reasonably presumed that mandating HCW flu vaccination results in better patient outcomes, but "reasonably presume" and "definitively know" are two very different things, and conflating the two only adds fuel to the vaccine conspiracist fire.

    I would suggest actually reading the full abstract, since it didn't find that there are currently no RCTs on the subject, it's analysis included 4 cluster-RCTs and a cohort study, these failed to show any improvement in outcomes with the intervention of mandated vaccination. And there is no prohibition or other inability to perform RCTs when it's presumed an intervention will produce better outcomes, that's actually the basis of most RCTs. The approval of an RCT becomes less likely when a proposed intervention is already well established to be harmful, but RCTs where the current balance of outcomes has not shown clear risk are not challenging to getting a study approved, particularly when both groups currently exist in practice (there are currently facilities that do not mandate vaccinations and there are those that do).
    Actually the control group would be patients who were cared for by HCWs that were not mandated to be vaccinated, not HCWs that were required to be unvaccinated. Such RCWs already exist and are well within allowable RCT design.
    The latter would, within limitations, answer the question "if mandating vaccine for HCWs would do any difference". If we want to answer the question "if vaccination of HCWs would do any difference", then we will have to form "clear control" of non-vaccinated HCW caring for "averagely" vaccinated population (with the same type of vaccine and known level of immune responce as evidenced by by titers) patients and avoiding "outside exposure bias" (that is, vaccination status of all visitors should be known, etc.). Counting that immune responce for flu vaccine is relatively low and in any given year chance of "antigen match" are also relatively low, being in average 60 +/- 10%, such study should be repeated for several years to gain enough power. That would probably be financial and logistical no-go. If we want to answer that million-dollars question of "if flu vaccination itself does any difference in morbidity/mortality among "X" population" in RCT format, then we will need "clear" control of population, that is, enough members of population randomly chosen and then purposefully injected with placebo, which would be ethical no-go.

    I actually went through literature list and found and read those four RCTs' articles. The authors of original study had quite a reason to claim that those studies were not high quality evidence despite of being RCTs by format, although the subject is a clearly very difficult one to plan and execute an RCT while avoiding as many biases as possible.

    These is one newer study about pediatric influenza-associated deaths (although, I guess, the second conclusion could be disputed):

    Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Pediatric Deaths: 21–214 | Articles | Pediatrics
  2. by   Here.I.Stand
    Quote from RunnerNurse09
    I am not anti vaccine at all, but I do really question the validity of pushing things such as the flu vaccine and gardasil. The flu vaccine effectiveness is usually under 50%, and the powers that be push it like its eradicating the flu altogether. I agree those that are elderly and at high risk for complications should receive it, but that's it. As far as gardasil is concerned, how about promote regular exams and PAP's by a gynecologist? Vaccines such as MMR and others are necessary, but I feel as if the flu vaccine and gardasil is more about making money. And no, I do not voice my personal beliefs to patients.
    Well it is primary prevention, vs screening for something that is happening -- as in this case, cervical dysplasia/CA.

    My own thoughts have evolved. As a conservative Christian, as a parent I teach my kids that sex is for married couples, and
  3. by   Here.I.Stand
    Editing
  4. by   Here.I.Stand
    Quote from RunnerNurse09
    I am not anti vaccine at all, but I do really question the validity of pushing things such as the flu vaccine and gardasil. The flu vaccine the is usually under 50%, and the powers that be push it like its eradicating the flu altogether. I agree those that are elderly and at high risk for complications should receive it, but that's it. As far as gardasil is concerned, how about promote regular exams and PAP's by a gynecologist? Vaccines such as MMR and others are necessary, but I feel as if the flu vaccine and gardasil is more about making money. And no, I do not voice my personal beliefs to patients.
    Well it is primary prevention, vs screening for something that is happening -- as in this case, cervical dysplasia/CA.

    My own thoughts have evolved. As a conservative Christian, as a parent I teach my kids that sex is for married couples, and I hope they wait. However, 1) people get tempted, even if they don't intend to be, 2) even for those who consider premarital sex a mistake, nobody deserves a death sentence for it 3) even if she does wait until the wedding night, that doesn't mean her husband will, and 4) women can get STIs from rape. My teenage daughter also knows that this is for certain strains of one virus -- it does NOT make sex safe(er.)

    One time visiting my folks, my dad was watching a documentary about vaccines. This dr made an excellent point: we aren't vaccinating against a mode of transmission -- we are vaccinating against a disease."

    Heck we've been vaccinating against HBV for years, which can also be transmitted sexually, along with modes that won't happen in the classroom.

    Of course efficacy could eventually show to be an issue and that's another story, but on the STI aspect? I can't think of a good reason not to try.
  5. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from wtbcrna
    Sex education should reflect the realities of our society not what we would wish them to be, and as I have already posted links to abstinence only education has shown to increase teenage pregnancy and STI rates.

    Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health in the United States | Guttmacher Institute
    We work to create the reality we want to see in our society. We don't just accept the current status quo if it is not acceptable to us. Ever hear of revolutions?
  6. by   Kooky Korky
    There was definitely no quarantine or other public health measure in the beginning. I lived through that time so don't even think of telling me there were. This known killer disease was so politicized that normal public health measures were suspended in dealing with it.
  7. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from wtbcrna
    I already did.
    cop out
  8. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from wtbcrna
    Just because you don't have direct contact with patients doesn't mean you aren't a danger. This is basic epidemiology.
    How Flu Spreads | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC
    This whole argument has been that caregivers need the flu vaccine so they don't infect their patients.

    If a worker is nowhere near patients they will not be infecting patients. Same with workers in areas other than health care.

    Furthermore, the effectiveness of flu shots is quite low.
  9. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from wtbcrna
    I'm lost. What is your point?
    You're lost? It's alright, don't trouble yourself.
  10. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from BostonFNP
    This is the construct related to science and conspiracy theory that we know from the extant data:

    1. Conspiracist ideation predicts the rejection of nearly all scientific principles (to varying extent).

    2. Conspiracy theories have components of simultaneous belief in mutually contradictory theories, rely on isolated anecdotal accounts or data outliers, and evidence against the theory is often cited as evidence for the theory in that it indicates a larger role for the conspirators.

    3. Conspiracists tend to believe in conspiracy because they themselves are more willing to conspire.

    We have all witnessed this construct in real time on this thread.
    Conspiracists are more willing to conspire? Provide a legitimate source for this opinion, please?

    Conspiracists reject nearly all scientific principles to varying extent? Wow again. No source cited.

    Larger role? What does that mean? Conspiracists want fame? Or what?
  11. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    Good point.
    Yes, I couldn't remember the specifics -- thanks for the link.
    The trouble isn't just with diseases being brought in by immigrants. These viruses are kept alive at CDC, Plum Island, maybe other locations. A good hurricane hitting Plum, for instance, can likely bring them out into the open. Military research about biological research is an issue, too.
  12. by   klone
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    It's interesting that public health is not at stake apparently when it comes to HIV or even full-blown AIDS.
    WTF are you talking about.
    ? You throw out so many random non sequiturs it's hard to keep up.

    So humor me. What does HIV have to do with it? There is currently no HIV vaccine, so I fail to understand your parallel.
  13. by   heron
    Quote from klone
    WTF are you talking about.
    ? You throw out so many random non sequiturs it's hard to keep up.

    So humor me. What does HIV have to do with it? There is currently no HIV vaccine, so I fail to understand your parallel.
    It's apparently a reference to the supposed "special priveleges" enjoyed by lgbt folk. That poster may "remember" those days, but not very accurately. I suspect he's referring to the legislation and policies required to protect confidentiality and civil rights of people with AIDS or HIV.

    Not only do I remember those days but I worked directly with men and women affected by the epidemic from the mid-eighties through the end of the century and you're correct, nothing to do with the current discussion.

    The politics of the HIV epidemic are a whole ‘nother bunch of threads.

close