Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 7

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   hherrn
    Quote from RunnerNurse09
    So then the doctor you refer to is letting his patients make the decision based on risk benefit...isnt that what a provider is supposed to do ethically, isnt that what patient centered care is? When you listen to the drug commercials on television and they list the possible side effects to medications, do you think it makes patients more or less inclined to ask for them? Informed consent is one thing, scare tactics are another. I am not sure which you are speaking.
    I never, ever said I thought the flu shot was harmful, and I dont know how words are being twisted.
    1) the flu shot can be, and is, beneficial. I personally do not feel it is effective enough based on what the CDC states for me personally to get it UNLESS i am required to do so. THAT is my choice.
    2) I would never talk a patient out if getting vaccinated, or any other treatment. If a patient directly asked me the statistics on the flu shot, I would show them the stats from the CDC, and advise them as per the CDC is it highly recommended. Period. I would never advise otherwise unless the recommendations changed.
    No doctor or any provider should be hiding information on the risk vs. benefit of a procedure.

    "The flu vaccine effectiveness is usually under 50%, and the powers that be push it like its eradicating the flu altogether."

    So, would you be showing them that statistic? I would also like to see it, as it is very different from my understanding. I could have it wrong.

    I think that the reaction you are getting comes from how you are presenting this. You refer to "the powers that be". Who are these powers? Medical experts?

    Or, "Show me the statistics that say the flu vaccine is 100% effective." I don't think anybody claimed this. Or that it is even relevant.

    And, your emphasis on the importance of beliefs and opinions is similar to those who don't rely on science.

    Oddly, I think you do rely on science. And, I think that your conclusion about your risk/benefit ratio actually makes sense. As to whether it is technically, statistically a correct conclusion I am not sure. But is is certainly not out there as far as the risk/benefit to you personally getting the flu.

    From my reading, I determined: Like anything, there is a risk benefit ratio to a flu shot. and that ratio differs by the individual. The risks of the shot seem to be fairly similar, despite demographics. In other words, I am just as likely, (or unlikely) to get guillain barre syndrome as somebody older or not as healthy. So, we have about the same level of risk. But, an older, less healthy individual is far more likely to die from the flu, so gets a greater benefit from X% immunity.

    Just because the risk benefit of the flu shot is favorable to the general public, does not mean it is favorable to me. Or you, given your screen name. I actually tried to look for studies that stratified risk benefit by overall health and fitness, but didn't come up with anything. So, you and I appeared to be lumped into the same group as sedentary obese smokers, despite the fact that they have more to gain, and less to lose.

    My impression was that I might actually be better off without the flu shot. The chance of me dying from the flu is minute. Possibly less than the chance of guillain barre syndrome. But, more important is this: Symptoms start 1 to 4 days after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick. Some people can be infected with the flu virus but have no symptoms.

    As a nurse, it is irresponsible for me to not reduce the chance of infecting others. I got the flu a few years ago. Left in the middle of my third shift in a row after measuring a fever. I could have infected patients before leaving, or on earlier shifts. But, at least I had done due diligence in reducing those odds.
  2. by   RunnerNurse09
    Quote from hherrn
    [I]
    As a nurse, it is irresponsible for me to not reduce the chance of infecting others. I got the flu a few years ago. Left in the middle of my third shift in a row after measuring a fever. I could have infected patients before leaving, or on earlier shifts. But, at least I had done due diligence in reducing those odds.
    Agreed
  3. by   Daisy Joyce
    Yes--when HCPs speak in a condescending or dismissive way to patients, it only gets their back up.
    I'm no anti-vaxxer, but I am anti-treating the patient like an idiot because they express a fear or a doubt or see the world differently than you.
    And don't forget, lots of things that are no longer done were considered good medicine once. I started my nursing career when side rails and restraints were responsible nursing care, and a baby was ALWAYS out to sleep on his tummy.
    So, things change, and the average patient doesn't have access to the studies and rationales of why they changed. So, their takeaway is "doctors don't know everything".
    And a lot of them are scared. Autism is a devastating disease.
    So, it's our job to share the information with them, not browbeat them, not condescend (which, BTW, won't make them suddenly meek and agreeable -- it's will only make them angry, reinforce the idea of patriarchal medicine, and NOT get their kid vaccinated).
    People skills.
  4. by   GM2RN
    Quote from ThePrincessBride
    I don't know about conspiracy theory, but many are highly uneducated and paranoid about science and pride themselves on being "all-natural."

    And if you talk to most elderly people who actually lived through polio and other illnesses that have been eradicated by vaccines, they will say that immunizations are God-sent. These young people haven't got a clue how fortunate they are to live in today's times instead of the thirties.

    I'm sure FDR would agree.
    "Highly uneducated and paranoid," hmmm!

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea how educated your so-called "anti-vaxxers" are. But lets say for discussions sake that some--not many--are not as well educated as you. How do you account for the many nurses, doctors, scientists, and other very highly educated people--many that are more educated than those on this board--that refuse to vaccinate their children/families and stand somewhere on the side of the fence as the "anti-vaxxers?"
    Last edit by GM2RN on Oct 25, '17
  5. by   GM2RN
    Quote from elkpark
    This is a complete red herring and non sequitur that has nothing to do with anyone's views on vaccination.



    If anyone is "failing to give ... a thorough, genuine hearing" to the other side or not studying the point of view of the other side, it's the anti-vaxxers. The alleged connection between autism and vaccinations has been completely, thoroughly debunked. Even the question of whether autism rates actually are "skyrocketing" is controversial and unsettled. As for GBS, there was one year in which there was a connection demonstrated between a flu vaccination and GBS. That was 1976, and the vaccination involved was specifically for "swine flu." That was one year, one specific vaccination, over 40 years ago. Before and after that one year, there has been no connection shown between the flu vaccination and GBS. Individuals are no more likely to develop GBS after receiving the flu vaccination than they are to develop GBS without having received the flu vaccination (GBS was around before there were flu vaccinations, and does arise completely unrelated to flu vaccination). What does create a higher risk of GBS is having had the flu. And yet, the anti-vaxxer crowd appears to completely disregard and deny the available scientific evidence related to these issues and prefers to cling to debunked theories unsupported by any actual evidence.
    If the connection between autism and vaccines has been so thoroughly debunked, why does the vaccine court award to some with autism due to vaccine injury? And that's not to say that all autism is caused by vaccine injury because it's not, but some certainly is.
  6. by   GM2RN
    Quote from klone

    And YES, I'm pushing the issue because it's very personal to me. If Gardasil existed 30 years ago, I WOULD STILL HAVE A UTERUS.
    Not necessarily true. Gardasil doesn't even claim to protect against all viruses that can cause cervical cancer.
    Last edit by GM2RN on Oct 25, '17
  7. by   GM2RN
    Quote from KatieMI
    Recently in Australia, parents lost their rights to receive goverment child support subsidies if they refuse vaccinations. It worked as a miracle. Parents of 200000+ kids suddenly forgot about their personal views and their uncompatible incongruencies with scientific facts and/or magically overcame their concerns and fears when they just got to know a simple, unambigous thing: no jab, no muneys on account, period.

    2, More Children Have Been Vaccinated In Australia Following New Policies | IFLScience
    How do you expect people to react when they are threatened with the loss of subsidies that, for some, literally make the difference between providing food for their kids or having them go hungry?
  8. by   KatieMI
    Quote from GM2RN
    How do you expect people to react when they are threatened with the loss of subsidies that, for some, literally make the difference between providing food for their kids or having them go hungry?
    I f people REALLY feel so hard for an issue, they usually do not bend that easy. They find jobs, they move, they immigrate, they fight, after all. Look what is going on in Ontario, Canada and their sex ed program in public schools.

    If they prefer to get kids vaccinated instead of doing any of that, it means that the holy issue was not an issue.

    BTW,

    There was so far ONE precedent when a family got $$$ for pretty much temporary association of vaccination and discovery of ASD. Temporary association doesn't imply causation. If there were more such cases, please provide evidence.

    Please provide evidence of "many" health care professionals refusing vaccines for their children as well. Otherwise, the same "highly educated" population believes in stuff about GMO killer foods, naturopathy for everything, raw veganism, flat Earth, holographic Moon and the government organizing 9/11. Having a diploma doesn't equal having critical thinking, you know, and I'll be silent about how an average college grad understands everyday math and statistics, leaving alone the level needed to understand basic epidemiology.

    If you personally are against vaccines, that's your right. But it is not your right to risk lives of others, especially most vulnerable and weak ones. If a young child or an immunodepressed adult "just catches" something from an uncaccinated kid and dies, the mom of that kid is not "just a non-believer in vaccines". She is a killer.
    Last edit by KatieMI on Oct 25, '17
  9. by   GM2RN
    Quote from KatieMI
    I f people REALLY feel so hard for an issue, they usually do not bend that easy. They find jobs, they move, they immigrate, they fight, after all. Look what is going on in Ontario, Canada and their sex ed program in public schools.

    If they prefer to get kids vaccinated instead of doing any of that, it means that the holy issue was not an issue at all.
    I'm sure that at least some of those who CAN do what you suggested, have. But you are making the leap that none have, and you are also assuming that everyone can, which is not logical.
  10. by   klone
    Quote from GM2RN
    Not necessarily true. Gardasil doesn't even claim to protect against all viruses that can cause cervical cancer.
    I was positive for 16. That and 18 cause about 75% of all cervical cancers. And Gardasil protects against 16 and 18, in addition to several others.
  11. by   GM2RN
    Quote from klone
    I was positive for 16. That and 18 cause about 75% of all cervical cancers. And Gardasil protects against 16 and 18, in addition to several others.
    When it is effective. I'm sorry you had to lose your uterus, but it also isn't 100% effective for everyone either, so there's no way to know with 100% certainty that you would not have gotten cancer if you'd gotten the vaccine.
  12. by   klone
    Quote from GM2RN
    When it is effective. I'm sorry you had to lose your uterus, but it also isn't 100% effective for everyone either, so there's no way to know with 100% certainty that you would not have gotten cancer if you'd gotten the vaccine.
    Okay, fine. You really want to argue with me about my hysterectomy? Really?

    If Gardasil had been available 30 years ago, I would PROBABLY still have my uterus. Better?
  13. by   KatieMI
    Quote from GM2RN
    I'm sure that at least some of those who CAN do what you suggested, have. But you are making the leap that none have, and you are also assuming that everyone can, which is not logical.
    Get your passport, go to Toronto science centre, sit there for a while. I recommend the hands-on room near temporary exhibitions' wing. Listen what parents there say and do if the problem seems that important for them. Then we will get together and chat about what people do if they feel THAT affected.

    Also see work, migration and immigration stats for Australia so that you can see that your conclusions have nothing to do with reality.

    Life gets full of discoveries, my friend, once you get out of where you firmly planted yourself.

close