Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 25

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   wtbcrna
    The title of the thread is "Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally". It's not how to talk to patients or don't hurt my feelings because I'm am a nurse and don't believe in the science behind vaccines.
    Rarely is HCP going to talk to their professional colleagues the way the do their patients and I highly doubt any Nurse on here talks to patients in a manner that we post, so for the benefit of this thread can everyone quit acting like we are talking to patients on here.
  2. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from heron

    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 know I said I left this thread. Morbid curiosity brings me back, I guess. But please respond to the point I made several times here, but continues to be ignored..... who are the anti-vaxers in this thread? I count one (1). Kooky, I think, is the only anti-vaxer in this thread.

    All kinds of accusations about "nurses" here in this thread -- PLURAL -- being anti-science, illogical and unfit for practice --- and yet I count only one person who voiced anti-vax sentiments. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

    So it would seem like there is great broad strokes being used to paint over ANYONE who does not strictly conform to the "I-am-provaccine-and-angry-about-it" mantra. I have been shown the door in this thread multiple times for simply saying something to the effect of 'being right isn't good enough, you gotta be nice about it, too' --- and apparently any kind of statement like that earns me and any other the "anti-vax" label?

    This is an important point, because over and over in this thread we have been cautioned about this HUGE threat to scientific intellectualism even within our own profession based on the comments of ONE person. I guess technically that ONE person constitutes a majority of anti-vaxers in this thread, so there's that. But c'mon, this kind of broad brush stuff isn't helping the pro-vaccine cause.

    If I'm wrong about the numbers in this thread, can you give me an accurate count?
  3. by   JKL33
    Quote from heron
    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.
    I have been crystal clear that I am speaking about undecideds. Those with a genuine knowledge deficit.

    I am always interested in sincere conversation. The initial question was about conspiracy theory r/t vaccines. My observation was simply that it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to "be" someone who asks questions about vaccines. My next opinion was that the way we answer is of importance. My most recent comment which you have quoted was in direct relation to an expectant poster who seemed (to me) like an undecided, concerned person.

    I don't believe I have said anything about personal autonomy.

    I understand your exasperation - - but it should be directed at those who don't really have questions or sincere concerns, not those who do. I don't argue with irrational, purposely-provocative people IRL, which is why I've only participated in this thread to the extent that we are talking about those with sincere questions.

    I deal with people nearly every day who think everything is a fever, believe that regular old fevers cause brain damage, and who routinely don't know what OTC medicine they have given their children, if any (or, conversely, those who have given portions of aspirin tablets, for another example). I routinely hear from those who are upset that their child isn't the kind of "sick" that requires an antibiotic. I mean, whatcha gonna do? Exasperation has its limits. At some point the only thing to do is try to educate in a genuine manner and then move on...
  4. by   heron
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    I know I said I left this thread. Morbid curiosity brings me back, I guess. But please respond to the point I made several times here, but continues to be ignored..... who are the anti-vaxers in this thread? I count one (1). Kooky, I think, is the only anti-vaxer in this thread.

    All kinds of accusations about "nurses" here in this thread -- PLURAL -- being anti-science, illogical and unfit for practice --- and yet I count only one person who voiced anti-vax sentiments. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

    So it would seem like there is great broad strokes being used to paint over ANYONE who does not strictly conform to the "I-am-provaccine-and-angry-about-it" mantra. I have been shown the door in this thread multiple times for simply saying something to the effect of 'being right isn't good enough, you gotta be nice about it, too' --- and apparently any kind of statement like that earns me and any other the "anti-vax" label?

    This is an important point, because over and over in this thread we have been cautioned about this HUGE threat to scientific intellectualism even within our own profession based on the comments of ONE person. I guess technically that ONE person constitutes a majority of anti-vaxers in this thread, so there's that. But c'mon, this kind of broad brush stuff isn't helping the pro-vaccine cause.

    If I'm wrong about the numbers in this thread, can you give me an accurate count?
    If there are virtually no anti-vaxxers in the thread, why are we being scolded for being mean to them?
  5. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from heron
    If there are virtually no anti-vaxxers in the thread, why are we being scolded for being mean to them?
    You didn't answer the question. How many here do you count as anti-vaxers?
  6. by   heron
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    You didn't answer the question. How many here do you count as anti-vaxers?
    I didn't answer the question because I didn't - and won't - count them. Why is the number of anti-vaxxers in this particular thread relevant, anyway?

    This vaccine argument has been going on here for years. Every flu season gets a thread and often more than one. There's yet another thread just been started about flu vaccination at the VA. (That one seems to be starting with the personal autonomy vs. the common good scenario.)

    I've loosely followed most of those discussions since I joined AN in 2004 (or ‘05, I forget.) The arguments are the same in every one of them and reflect exactly the willful ignorance i'm talking about. There are very few, if any, “sincere” questions to be found at this point that haven’t already been addressed in one of those threads. Multiple times.
    Last edit by heron on Oct 31, '17
  7. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from heron
    I didn't answer the question because I didn't - and won't - count them. Why is the number of anti-vaxxers in this particular thread relevant, anyway. This vaccine argument has been going on here for years. Every flu season gets a thread and often more than one. There's one just been started about flu vaccination at the VA. I've loosely followed most of them since I joined AN in 2004 ( or ‘05, I forget.) The arguments are the same in every one of them and reflects exactly the willful ignorance i'm talking about.

    ^^^Yep.
  8. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from heron
    I didn't answer the question because I didn't - and won't - count them. Why is the number of anti-vaxxers in this particular thread relevant, anyway. .
    It matters because there are pages and pages of angst-laden rhetoric against all of these supposed anti-vax nurses. And it has been said, more than once here, that anti-science will be the undoing of us all based on THIS thread. (*hint: I suspect there are a few nurses here who have been unfairly and incorrectly lumped into the anti-vax category and therefore anything they say must be countered with more links and rhetoric that those very nurses already agree with!)

    It matters because it's poor form. Poor form is ineffective and discredits the person who uses it. That doesn't help the cause you claim to be so passionate about.
  9. by   wtbcrna
    I think it's more than just being completely against vaccines/antivaxxer, but we have seen comments from more than one poster how flu vaccines are not effective/needed, vaccines overwhelming infant immune system, autism/vaccines, autoimmune issues/vaccines, long term effects of vaccines, HPV vaccine/sex issues etc.
    I think every excuse that is used to not get vaccines has been discussed and the latest turn seems to be well if you were more warm and cuddly people would get vaccinated more.
    Last edit by wtbcrna on Oct 31, '17
  10. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from WestCoastSunRN
    I know I said I left this thread. Morbid curiosity brings me back, I guess. But please respond to the point I made several times here, but continues to be ignored..... who are the anti-vaxers in this thread? I count one (1). Kooky, I think, is the only anti-vaxer in this thread.

    All kinds of accusations about "nurses" here in this thread -- PLURAL -- being anti-science, illogical and unfit for practice --- and yet I count only one person who voiced anti-vax sentiments. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

    So it would seem like there is great broad strokes being used to paint over ANYONE who does not strictly conform to the "I-am-provaccine-and-angry-about-it" mantra. I have been shown the door in this thread multiple times for simply saying something to the effect of 'being right isn't good enough, you gotta be nice about it, too' --- and apparently any kind of statement like that earns me and any other the "anti-vax" label?

    This is an important point, because over and over in this thread we have been cautioned about this HUGE threat to scientific intellectualism even within our own profession based on the comments of ONE person. I guess technically that ONE person constitutes a majority of anti-vaxers in this thread, so there's that. But c'mon, this kind of broad brush stuff isn't helping the pro-vaccine cause.

    If I'm wrong about the numbers in this thread, can you give me an accurate count?
    And even I have said I am unsure.

    It's not possible, I guess, for some people here to not be angry. They just can't remain civil and discuss things without anger. Kind of sad.
  11. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    And even I have said I am unsure.

    It's not possible, I guess, for some people here to not be angry. They just can't remain civil and discuss things without anger. Kind of sad.
    What is truly sad is to see people even when presented with the evidence refuse to acknowledge they are incorrect.
  12. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from Horseshoe
    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:



    Vaccines 11: Too Much Too Soon? | The Scientific Parent

    Hope that helps.
    This was actually helpful. Wish you had posted it sooner instead of calling me names and being mean.

    How is the purity of vaccines today compared to in the past? Purity being the absence of foreign matter and unnamed antigens.
  13. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from Kooky Korky

    How is the purity of vaccines today compared to in the past? Purity being the absence of foreign matter and unnamed antigens.
    From the same link:

    The final question this family had was about preservatives in vaccines, including aluminum and mercury, which was something the wife's family had brought up as a concern about vaccines. "They want to know how it can be safe for their grandchild to be injected with metals like this into their bloodstream?"

    Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth. It occurs naturally in rocks and soil. In fact we all have aluminum in our bodies right now just by drinking water and eating plants and fish that naturally contain small amounts of it. Infants get more aluminum into their system in a year from breastmilk than they do from all the vaccines they get in that year combined. Breastfeeding for a year gives a child 7 milligrams of aluminum, formula feeding can give up to 117 milligrams in a year. All of the vaccines combined in the first year provide 4.4 milligrams.*

    Aluminum salt is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant boosts the immune system's response to the antigen. The amount of aluminum salt in each vaccine is well below what would be considered toxic for an infant. Like we say all too frequently in medicine, the dose makes the poison.

    Now, on to the mercury question. The mercury in vaccines is known commercially as thimerosal, which has about 50% mercury content and is used as a preservative. Why was this ever used in the first place? It acts to keep the vaccine fresh in storage. It is also important to know that there are different types of mercury. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is the naturally occurring form of mercury, and not methylmercury which is an industrial byproduct that builds up in fish and in the human body.

    In the mid-1990s thimerosal was removed from all single-dose pediatric vaccines in the U.S. in response to public outcry over its use. Some but not all brands of multi-dose influenza vaccines still contain thimerosal. Despite a lack of evidence that the preservative in its dose in vaccines posed a health risk, the CDC recommended the removal in hopes of calming public fears, but the move had the opposite effect. Doctors and public health professionals like myself have been wringing our hands at the move ever since.

    While many studies have failed to show any harm from thimerosal in vaccines, regardless, you don't even need to ask the question anymore. Thimerosal is no longer in the vaccines your child is going to get.

close