Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 24

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   BostonFNP
    Quote from klone
    This article assumes that the mother or a caregiver has unknown/undiagnosed HBV infection. I think that if the mother knows her HBsag status and she has no other caregivers for her newborn, delaying that first HBV immunization until a later WCC is a reasonable option.
    The mother is HBsAg negative, but the infant is exposed to HBV postnatally from another family member or caregiver. This occurs in two-thirds of the cases of childhood transmission.

    From the link.
  2. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from JKL33
    You have come up with the classic example of not addressing real issues as already presented earlier in this thread:

    When you say that the baby receives hundreds more assaults every day than the number that comprise childhood vaccines, you do realize that, although that is true, babies don't have as visible reactions to these assaults as they do vaccines, period. Food has "germs" and crawling on the floor involves "germs" and breathing involves "germs," or assaults, as you say. And yet babies don't get fussy, sleepy/apathetic and febrile every time they are assaulted through the acts of eating food, crawling on the floor, and breathing.

    You can be as right as rain but if you can't present your issue in a way that doesn't seem illogical to lay people, it won't matter - that itself has been accepted knowledge for quite some time. You'll just have to humble yourself and take it down a notch - - shouldn't be too big a deal since what we're concerned with is the child's health and not our own personal sense of indignation about someone else's ignorance.
    That is bull. Infants and toddlers are constantly running around with runny noses cough, colds and URIs. One textbook I had estimated that toddlers would get 6-8 URIs a year and it takes about 6-8 to get completely over each one. These kids immune systems are in hyperdrive all the time.

    The real issue is that people have come to not trust government in any form and believe conspiracy theories/anti-science is a valid form of evidence. I presuming I am talking to HCPs on here not lay people. I talk to my patients in way tailored to what I think they will understand, if you were right that just talking to parents the right way would we increase the vaccine percentages then we wouldn't be seeing all these breakouts of vaccine preventable diseases from unvaccinated people.
  3. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from countrynurse09
    I am a nurse, and I am pregnant. At this point, I'm still on the fence about which vaccines I want my child to have. Any POSSIBLE link to autism terrifies me. This isn't too say that I won't vaccinate, or that I believe vaccines cause autism.. I am unsure and scared. I do know that I will not show my newborn to receive a hepatitis vax in the hospital before he even comes home. Regardless of whether or not it is safe (autism wise), I dint want his brand new body and immune system bombarded with mercury (or other vax additives). I also don't want his tiny brand new body pushes into an immune response to the vax (as it is intended to do to prevent hepatitis). To me, giving a vaccine right after birth would be putting undue pressue on his little body. Will I chose to vaccinate him for it a couple months later, quite possibly. I haven't decided. BUT what I don't find helpful is the aggressive stance that provaxers are taking, when they insinuate that I will be a bad mother if I choose to delay or even skip a vaccine. I think an open minded and respectful conversation would be more effective in helping me to make this confusing and fear charged decision.
    Countrynurse, I will echo those who have said that research has been conducted to test Wakefield's hypothesis that MMR causes autism all over the world. NONE of the studies was able to replicate his (faked) findings. As a nurse, you surely know that when a conclusion is made in a research study, the only thing we can take from that study is that it warrants further study. Any study which makes a claim MUST be able to show that it can be replicated over and over and over by other studies. That has never happened with any studies looking for a causal link between vaccines and autism.

    As to your concern about exposing your baby to too many vaccines, this is interesting to consider:

    The simple answer is: though you and I had fewer vaccines as kids, your child is actually being exposed to fewer antigens and preservatives than we were.

    When we were children (70s, 80s and early 90s) we were vaccinated against fewer things (which were nonetheless still deadly). Let's take the CDC's vaccine schedule from 1983 for example. There were seven diseases we were protected against including measles, mumps, rubella, (MMR), Diptheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) and polio. Because of how vaccines were made at the time, we were exposed to about 3,000 antigens by the time we were 12 months old and 12,000 by the time we were 4 if we got all of our vaccines.

    Today's CDC schedule provides protection against 14 diseases before the age of two. If a child today receives all their vaccines on schedule and has received all doses by 12 months, they will have been exposed to 150-204 antigens, depending on the timing of their 12 month shots. If they have received all the recommended vaccines by age four, depending on the timing of their four year shots, they will have been exposed to exactly 359 antigens for ALL vaccines from birth through age four.

    When you compare 204 and 359 antigens to about 3,000 to 12,000, just 30-40 years ago, that's a huge reduction in exposure as well as additional protection against 6 more diseases. Additionally, as the antigen dose in each vaccine has decreased, there has been a corresponding drop in both the amount of preservatives in each vaccine, and the total amount of preservatives received (fewer antigens means fewer preservatives).
    Vaccines 11: Too Much Too Soon? | The Scientific Parent

    Hope that helps.
  4. by   heron
    Quote from wtbcrna
    I would disagree. All labs have a margin of error, and there is no benefit to waiting to get the vaccine. This again is either you believe in the science or you don't. I understand what you are saying, but really what is the downside to getting it at birth? Vaccines don't overwhelm the immune system, vaccines don't cause any cognitive dysfunctions/ASD, vaccines adjuncts don't cause autoimmune dysfunction so you get to delay one shot with the hope that your labs are correct and hopefully no other exposure to HBV happens.
    I understand the fear and worry of being a parent, but I don't understand the irrational decision once you look at the science of benefit vs risk.
    It seems that every new anti-vax poster insists that we must be "open-minded" about myths that have been disproven over and over ad nauseam. It's like being required to re-re-re-reconsider the theory that all illness is caused by an imbalance of the four humors.

    Freakin' enough!
  5. by   JKL33
    Quote from hherrn
    Now I am confused. I haven't closely followed all of the controversy on vaccines/autism, but I thought any links were disproved. I know that a fraudulent article was published, and some celebrities pushed the idea, but I did not know any links had been found. What are the possible links you are referring to?


    You are seeking an open minded and respectful conversation. That will be tricky, depending on your definition of open minded. Medical experts aren't going to be open minded about Jenny Mcarthy's opinions. And, they are pretty ticked off that a peer published an article that has been used to the detriment of innocent children, so they are kind of closed minded about that. But it is reasonable to expect them to be open minded in the best way to educate you, and be respectful in doing so.

    You are confused and scared. This has been primarily caused by your use of the internet, and will not be solved by using the internet.

    I would suggest you find a pediatrician you trust. This is somebody who is smart, educated, and has no agenda other than the health of your baby. And, yes, this will be a "provaxxer", mainly because it will be a "prosciencer".
    You aren't confused at all. Since you go on to give the facts in the very same paragraph, your insincerity is showing. It's certainly a technique for rhetorical debate and attempts to embarrass an opponent but not so much for a health discussion with someone who is already scared and who actually referred to "risks" as in "the mere idea of a risk." Loving, normal people can be freaked out about their new responsibilities - same reason my DH drove us home from the hospital going 15 mph the whole way (it was a fairly short drive, but...come on. He was scared out of his mind about being responsible for a new baby and trying not to hurt his wife with any bumps or sudden moves).

    Are you planning to prevail here based on humiliation techniques? I'm guessing science would say that's probably not likely in this scenario.
  6. by   KatieMI
    Quote from countrynurse09
    I am a nurse, and I am pregnant. At this point, I'm still on the fence about which vaccines I want my child to have. Any POSSIBLE link to autism terrifies me. This isn't too say that I won't vaccinate, or that I believe vaccines cause autism.. I am unsure and scared. I do know that I will not show my newborn to receive a hepatitis vax in the hospital before he even comes home. Regardless of whether or not it is safe (autism wise), I dint want his brand new body and immune system bombarded with mercury (or other vax additives). I also don't want his tiny brand new body pushes into an immune response to the vax (as it is intended to do to prevent hepatitis). To me, giving a vaccine right after birth would be putting undue pressue on his little body. Will I chose to vaccinate him for it a couple months later, quite possibly. I haven't decided. BUT what I don't find helpful is the aggressive stance that provaxers are taking, when they insinuate that I will be a bad mother if I choose to delay or even skip a vaccine. I think an open minded and respectful conversation would be more effective in helping me to make this confusing and fear charged decision.
    If you really want an "open-minded" provider, look for an experienced NP. MDs/DOs, during their training, see and deal with all the "worst case scenarios" one can think of. After they get out of there, they pretty much split onto two pathways: either (minority) they would became "open-minded" and so tell you everything you want to hear and more of it, doesn't matter if it the truth or not as long as you pay them, or (majority) just state the facts they have and nothing else, which would be "scary and close-minded".

    Not that more NPs are serious about anti-vax, but more of them are just know better how to speak with patients.
  7. by   JKL33
    Quote from wtbcrna
    That is bull. Infants and toddlers are constantly running around with runny noses cough, colds and URIs. One textbook I had estimated that toddlers would get 6-8 URIs a year and it takes about 6-8 to get completely over each one. These kids immune systems are in hyperdrive all the time.

    The real issue is that people have come to not trust government in any form and believe conspiracy theories/anti-science is a valid form of evidence. I presuming I am talking to HCPs on here not lay people. I talk to my patients in way tailored to what I think they will understand, if you were right that just talking to parents the right way would we increase the vaccine percentages then we wouldn't be seeing all these breakouts of vaccine preventable diseases from unvaccinated people.
    No, it is not. For starters, running around with a snotty nose is not what happens after a vaccine visit, you know that very well. You know exactly what I am talking about.

    Additionally, the poster in question is a first-time parent. She theoretically has NO first-hand context for your facts about children frequently having colds or how they act when they do.

    But if you had an interest in being respectful, you could do some teaching about that, too.

    "Your baby/toddler is going to get several (maybe multiple) viral illnesses such as colds as a part of everyday exposures. When they do, they may act kind of punky for a couple of days, maybe have a fever, a decreased appetite, and be rather fussy/irritable or a little more difficult to comfort. This is self-limiting and we provide what we call supportive care....

    We see a similar thing when we give vaccines. This too is self-limiting and we provide supportive care at home....

    All of these help your baby become stronger at fighting off illnesses...."

    Etc.

    That is worlds different than saying "Those ideas about overwhelming the immune system are a bunch of crap - - kids face germs every day!"

    Parents are fearful of fever itself. You can do teaching about that, too.

    Suit yourself.
  8. by   KatieMI
    Quote from klone

    If a woman is HBV negative, and the infant has no other caregivers, what is the risk to waiting until the infant's first WCC to receive their first HBV vaccine?
    Because the amount of blood that is needed to transmit the virus is tiny to non-observable, and because the number of people infected with it is estimated as anywhere between 800000 and 2.2 mln. The last number means that nobody actually knows how many of them are out there.

    Hepatitis B FAQs for the Public | Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC

    Mother can know her hep status all right, but how can she guarantee that the owner of daycare where her baby spends 6 hours 5 days a week knows it about all her employees? Not all states enforce vaccination surveillance for daycare workers, and not all smaller businesses actually do it (and if they do, there's not much they could do about it - firing a person simply for having a transmissible disease guarantees an ugly lawsuit and bad publicity, the infected person cannot be forced into treatment because it is quite expensive and causes serious side effects, and full precautions against blood borne pathogens cost a hefty money). And haircombs, brushes and other such items can transmit infection if they are used on minimally irritated skin.

    I agree that the risk is not that high. But the outcomes of heb B in early childhood are so bad and treatment, while available, is not the easiest one, so why wait for a chance?
    And, BTW, the first well-baby visit usually takes place within first week postpartum. So, if a few days make difference for someone, I am all for that.
    Last edit by KatieMI on Oct 31, '17
  9. by   hherrn
    Quote from JKL33
    You aren't confused at all. Since you go on to give the facts in the very same paragraph, your insincerity is showing. It's certainly a technique for rhetorical debate and attempts to embarrass an opponent but not so much for a health discussion with someone who is already scared and who actually referred to "risks" as in "the mere idea of a risk." Loving, normal people can be freaked out about their new responsibilities - same reason my DH drove us home from the hospital going 15 mph the whole way (it was a fairly short drive, but...come on. He was scared out of his mind about being responsible for a new baby and trying not to hurt his wife with any bumps or sudden moves).

    Are you planning to prevail here based on humiliation techniques? I'm guessing science would say that's probably not likely in this scenario.
    You are right- I could have worded that better.

    The poster is scared and confused, and wants the best for her baby. What I am suggesting is that the fear and confusion come from unfiltered use of the internet. Would this "controversy" even exist without a few celebrities using the internet?The sheer mass of information, and misinformation make it hard for some people to sort through.

    If you think about pre-internet days, people got health information from books, articles, and experts. The information was vetted, and generally needed at least some validity to get much traction. Sure, people have always made unsubstantiated claims, but it was much harder for them to reach millions of people.

    And my suggestion is sincere. Pediatricians are generally very smart and dedicated. And, in my experience, good at communicating. (Disclaimer: I only see them when they come into the ER.) They are experts in the health of a baby, and are, hands down, the best source of information. The truth is, that they won't be open minded to bad information. But, a good pediatrician will be a good listener, and may help address the specific fears and clear up any confusion.

    In order for this to work, people have to believe that expertise matters.

    EDIT to add- I'll echo the suggestion of considering a pediatric NP. A provider trained in the nursing process may be more inclined to educate, and more understanding.
    Last edit by hherrn on Oct 31, '17
  10. by   JKL33
    Quote from wtbcrna
    if you were right that just talking to parents the right way would we increase the vaccine percentages then we wouldn't be seeing all these breakouts of vaccine preventable diseases from unvaccinated people.
    That may be true, I don't know. I don't have the best idea about what types of private patient-provider conversations are taking place across the country. My interest, though, would be in encouraging respectful conversation with the "undecideds" in particular. I think if we hear cues of uncertainty and fear they should alert us to a situation where a child's health could be affected by how we proceed. These are the situations where words matter because people haven't already made up their minds. They are information-seeking. They are practically begging for confirmation that the anti-vaccine camp is wrong, or for reassurrances about vaccination.

    Their questions may not be sophisticated but that is only of relevant consequence if we make it so.

    Healthcare providers-as-parents should be given the same respect. We don't all have the same areas of specific knowledge. Newborn responsibilities can make anyone a little unsure about life itself and anything we thought we already knew.
  11. by   klone
    Quote from KatieMI
    Mother can know her hep status all right, but how can she guarantee that the owner of daycare where her baby spends 6 hours 5 days a week knows it about all her employees? .
    I am in favor of making sure all infants/children who are in childcare are vaccinated for HBV. I specifically stated situations where there is no other caregiver.
  12. by   heron
    Quote from JKL33
    That may be true, I don't know. I don't have the best idea about what types of private patient-provider conversations are taking place across the country. My interest, though, would be in encouraging respectful conversation with the "undecideds" in particular. I think if we hear cues of uncertainty and fear they should alert us to a situation where a child's health could be affected by how we proceed. These are the situations where words matter because people haven't already made up their minds. They are information-seeking. They are practically begging for confirmation that the anti-vaccine camp is wrong, or for reassurrances about vaccination.

    Their questions may not be sophisticated but that is only of relevant consequence if we make it so.

    Healthcare providers-as-parents should be given the same respect. We don't all have the same areas of specific knowledge. Newborn responsibilities can make anyone a little unsure about life itself and anything we thought we already knew.
    When did AN become a nurse triage line? This is not a professional setting, it's a nurse-focused social media site. I'm personally sick of being scolded for not being "therapeutic" enough every day, all day, regardless of the context or my own feelings.

    Willful ignorance, which is what we see from the majority of anti-vaxxers posting here, is a behavior like any other and has consequences. One of those consequences is exasperation when the presentation of real epidemiological facts is met for the umpteenth time with, "But autism! GBS! Thimerisol! Mercury!" What's next - blaming the flu on miasmas from the local swamp?

    I get anxiety, fear and wanting the best for one's children. It's no excuse for willfully ignoring the basics of epidemiology and the concept of herd immunity.

    I get the concerns about personal autonomy, but that's no excuse for willfully endangering people who have no choice at all about their impaired immune systems.
  13. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from JKL33
    No, it is not. For starters, running around with a snotty nose is not what happens after a vaccine visit, you know that very well. You know exactly what I am talking about.

    Additionally, the poster in question is a first-time parent. She theoretically has NO first-hand context for your facts about children frequently having colds or how they act when they do.

    But if you had an interest in being respectful, you could do some teaching about that, too.

    "Your baby/toddler is going to get several (maybe multiple) viral illnesses such as colds as a part of everyday exposures. When they do, they may act kind of punky for a couple of days, maybe have a fever, a decreased appetite, and be rather fussy/irritable or a little more difficult to comfort. This is self-limiting and we provide what we call supportive care....

    We see a similar thing when we give vaccines. This too is self-limiting and we provide supportive care at home....

    All of these help your baby become stronger at fighting off illnesses...."

    Etc.

    That is worlds different than saying "Those ideas about overwhelming the immune system are a bunch of crap - - kids face germs every day!"

    Parents are fearful of fever itself. You can do teaching about that, too.

    Suit yourself.
    As I've said repeatedly and as others have said we are assuming we are talking to other Nurses or at least other HCPs. Talking to patients is different, if you become a patient of mine I will tailor the conversation to you as a patient.

    Vaccines cause an immune reaction caused from specific exposure to antigens. Viruses cause immune reactions based on antigens so for simplimflication purposes it isn't that much different with exception that viruses can and do cause illnesses where vaccines do not (with the exception of live polio virus which isn't used in most places).

close