Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 26

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   Kooky Korky
    Quote from elkpark
    Not only did he have a tiny "n", but it was later shown that, totally apart from that, he falsified his data because he had a financial stake in the outcome of the study. (That's the part he lost his license over. It's not that unusual, depending on the topic of the study, and not automatically wrong, to have a small "n" in a study.)
    Of course pharmaceutical houses or doctors or the government never have a financial stake in research.

    You all accuse those who are unsure or who are anti-vax of being unscientific. But maybe those who believe anything they read from certain sources are no better, no different.
  2. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from Horseshoe
    She was lost because what you said made absolutely zero sense.
    It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?

    It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...

    You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.
  3. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from LibraSunCNM
    I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this comment.

    And I was the poster who said you're throwing your religious beliefs into the discussion in an illogical way, for what it's worth, not wtbcrna. You stated that HPV could be prevented if people abstained from having sex, as if that should be the sole solution. Most people don't believe in or practice abstinence until marriage, but luckily there are still ways to prevent HPV---the Gardasil vaccine, and condom use---that don't involve imposing sexual repression on others.

    And the Duggars??? Really? You're actually defending the beliefs of that family? Are you unaware of the fact that the oldest son sexually abused several of his younger sisters for years, and that the family didn't approach the police about it for several more years? Do you think their arcane beliefs about sexuality could possibly be related to this?
    The Duggar's are entitled to their beliefs just as you are. I've already addressed the issue of their son.

    So answer my questions. What did I say about my religious beliefs except that I said "Jesus"?
  4. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?

    It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...

    You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.
    Your post did not have anything to do with herd immunity, the subject at hand.

    This essay explains it perfectly.

    The Unforgiving Math That Stops Epidemics | Quanta Magazine
  5. by   WestCoastSunRN
    Quote from 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.
    I hear you. I'm not a warm cuddly person myself, I just play one at the bedside. It's been frustrating, though, to try to engage in this thread. As JKL33 stated earlier, there are nuances to those who are undecided on vaccines. I tried to give examples of the types of things I hear people ask/question. I tried to stay away from outlier characteristics (ie. conspiracy theorists) and focus on people who are mostly mainstream types with internet access who are afraid at every turn they could be doing something to harm their child. That's the audience to focus on.

    You have good information. Don't dilute it with emotion.

    I learned things about threshold in this thread I didn't know before. I don't work in primary care or with a patient population whose primary concern is if their vaccines are up-to-date. That basic epidemiology is light years in the past for me -- way back in nursing school or even before. The refreshers I've gotten here are great.
    Last edit by WestCoastSunRN on Oct 31, '17 : Reason: posted too soon
  6. by   JKL33
    Quote from 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.
    I appreciate your concession and agree there have been some disappointing/surprising comments along the way, given that basic information is accessible.

    No one took a turn on you though...it's just that conversations about two different aspects of this issue were being discussed simultaneously at some points along the way. We weren't arguing against the facts, but rather discussing whether their presentation might make a difference for those who aren't decidedly anti-vaxx. This is significant because there are indeed anti-vaxx people, and then there are those whom we might be in a position to help make sense of all this. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.
  7. by   2018nursewi
    Quote from RunnerNurse09
    And that is your choice. What you are not getting is I have the right to make my own choices. It is amazing how part of this thread discussed people forcing their opinions down the throats of others. I voiced my opinion and my own personal choices and pretty much got attacked for it. It seems you are angry/upset at how I feel about the vaccine. I stated already I do not voice my opinion on any vaccine to patients. So why you feel so heated about what vaccines I choose for myself or my family makes no sense.
    I don't feel that Klone is forcing her opinion down your throat, I just think this is a topic very important to her. I'm getting the feeling you're feeling trapped by the lack of evidence in your favor. I understand that is your opinion on the topic, but I can admit I am having a hard time seeing your point of view in this particular situation. Gardasil can prevent cervical cancer caused by HPV. Why would you not want to protect your children (or yourself) from the pain and intense treatment required for cervical, cancer, anal, penile, and throat cancer? I recently cared for a woman with anal cancer caused by HPV who had undergone a 12 hour surgery to treat her disease. If I could choose to receive a vaccine to avoid that, I know I would and have.
  8. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    Of course pharmaceutical houses or doctors or the government never have a financial stake in research.

    You all accuse those who are unsure or who are anti-vax of being unscientific. But maybe those who believe anything they read from certain sources are no better, no different.
    This again is lack of understanding of research and a typical antivaccine argument.

    1. Most initial pharmaceutical/vaccine research is done with government grants
    2. Pharmaceutical companies make very little of their overall profits from traditional vaccines
    3. Post marketing surveillance of vaccines is almost never funded by pharmaceutical companies.
    4. Vaccines are the most widely tested and the only medications that constantly undergo postmarketing ssurvelliance and studies.
  9. by   chocoholic999
    Please look at historical facts and data from the 1918 flu. It was not the elderly and infirm who died from the flu...it was the young and healthy.
  10. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?

    It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...

    You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.
    Still not really understanding, but flu vaccine has a 40-60% overall efficacy rate. Anyone that coughs that has the flu can directly transmit the flu within a few feet of. Those aerosilized flu particles can survive on surfaces for up to 24 hours. So you tell us how someone can catch the flu so easily.
  11. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from JKL33
    I appreciate your concession and agree there have been some disappointing/surprising comments along the way, given that basic information is accessible.

    No one took a turn on you though...it's just that conversations about two different aspects of this issue were being discussed simultaneously at some points along the way. We weren't arguing against the facts, but rather discussing whether their presentation might make a difference for those who aren't decidedly anti-vaxx. This is significant because there are indeed anti-vaxx people, and then there are those whom we might be in a position to help make sense of all this. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.
    I understand what you mean but that it isn't the topic of this thread.
    There are though several articles about that topic .
  12. by   MunoRN
    Quote from KatieMI
    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
    We already know that an increase in vaccination rates results in a reduction of adverse outcomes related to influenza, which is why it's completely reasonable to state that there is good reason to believe based on related data that an increase in HCW vaccination rates will result in improved patient outcomes. But it's important to clarify that we don't "know" this to be true based direct measurement of mandatory vaccination policies and patient outcomes, the RCTs that do exist don't confirm this and truly high quality RCTs are lacking. This of course doesn't mean that we can say with certainty that there is no benefit to mandatory vaccinations of HCWs, but we can say with certainty needs to be honestly stated and qualified.
  13. by   MunoRN
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?

    It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...

    You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.
    In the more common strains the vaccines effectiveness is around 60% from year to year, so the number on a scenario where the vaccine "didn't work" don't "seriously outnumber" those for whom it was effective.

    Think of herd immunity as a room full of dominos where the dominos represent a population all susceptible to flu and therefore readily able to transmit the flu to others, by knocking down just one or a few dominoes they could potentially set of a chain reaction that knocks down all the other dominos. Now imagine the same room full of dominos but where you've glued down 50% of the dominos, knocking down that first domino might only cause a few other dominos to fall as the chain reaction can't perpetuate.

close