777RN 9,299 Views
Joined Mar 12, '09 - from 'Detroit, MI, US'.
She has '4+' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'Geriatrics, dementia, hospice'.
Posts: 310 (21% Liked)
Please, do yourself a favor and do NOT become a nurse because others want you to be a nurse. Only become a nurse if YOU truly want to be a nurse!
As a hospice nurse, I can assure you that life is SHORT. I care for people of all ages facing the end of life. What I have learned is that, at the end of life, most people regret less what they did and regret more what they DIDN'T do; i.e., the missed opportunities, the chances not taken, the paths not traversed.
What is your dream career; i.e., your wildest dream? Whatever it is, pursue that! If you dream of caring for and helping people, there are many career paths that would allow you to do so that don't involve nursing. Are you into wellness? If so, have you thought about massage therapy, music therapy, aromatherapy, art therapy, health & fitness, or something similar? Are you more into the psychosocial aspects of caring for people? What about social work, counseling, or something related?
Sorry, but I think that, overall, nursing is too stressful a job for someone to come into it having major reservations from the start. Nevertheless, whatever you decide, best wishes!
You have posed a great challenge to me; that is, to post about some of the benefits of vaccination. However, I shall try to rise to the challenge.
But, before I do that, I'll just mention that the history of vaccine science has been surrounded by dissenting opinions (that have been suppressed) since the beginning. There's a lot of (suppressed) controversy surrounding just how much credit vaccines should have received in the reduction of certain infectious diseases, even polio, in the first place. As an example mentioned previously, according to the CDC, malaria has basically been nonexistent in the US since the 1950s (long before the introduction of a vaccine), yet runs rampant in parts of the developing world. Why would this be? For a brief overview of "forgotten" vaccine history, please consider this article, which points to other resources.
Again, I am not against vaccine theory, as I believe it is plausible. However, as I have also said before, I do not believe vaccines are necessary. I believe there are easier, healthier, less costly, and safer ways to prevent infectious diseases.
So, now on to benefits of vaccination. I believe that post-exposure vaccines, such as rabies and tetanus, have saved (perhaps thousands of) lives ... and for that, I am grateful.
I never said that the research I have performed included labwork or benchwork. For decades, I have been researching vaccine-related medical literature from the 1800s to the present. Dissenting opinions have existed (and have been suppressed) since the beginning.
Again, I already apologized for suggesting that you hadn't watched VAXXED, which readers who look back, will be able to see. My exact statement was: "How can you honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED, if you haven't even watched it?"—if being the key word. I also wrote in a later post that that statement could have been worded better as such: "How can anyone honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED without having even watched it?"—and that the original statement wasn't directed at solely you. Nevertheless, whether you accept my apology or not is your prerogative. This topic is far more important than two nurses having a personality clash.
It is interesting that you have, from your very first reply to my post, taken such an aggressive, negative stance against me. Even in this last post, your motive seems to be discredit me, while completely ignoring the vaccine-safety issues raised in my original and subsequent posts. Ignoring my points because you don't like my writing style seems like a weak excuse, at best. Furthermore, attacking me personally just obfuscates the issue and is a distraction from the topic at hand (similar to much of what we're seeing in the mainstream media reporting on this circus of a presidential election, but I digress).
This thread is not about you or me. I opened this topic to raise awareness about the dark side of vaccines. I also believe that nurses are going to have to rise to the occasion and discuss vaccines with increased frequency with patients and the general public, as more vaccines come to market and more mandates become enforced. If we can't be civil talking about this matter amongst ourselves, how will we able to rationally and fairly discuss it with our patients and with the public?
Again, this debate isn't about us. You don't have to like my writing style or tone. (For the record, I don't care for being personally attacked and receiving "captain obvious" comments, but I can take the blows dealt because this issue is NOT about me.) It's about millions of children receiving vaccines, by mandate, that have safety-related issues and the flawed scientific studies supporting their use. You should refute the vaccine safety-related points raised in my previous posts and VAXXED, not to engage me, but for the benefit of readers, nurses and laypeople alike, who might have genuine questions.
Incidentally, you have been trying to shut down this discussion since your very first post in this thread, requesting that the moderators remove my original post. However, if your motivation is to inform and provide truth to readers (who you believe may be misled by the points I have raised), it is your duty to refute my points with a real counterargument instead of attempting to censor it.
I double-dog (make that triple-dog) dare you!
Thank you, herring_RN, for replying with additional information that includes both risks and benefits of vaccines.
Willingness to discuss this issue, while civilly disagreeing, is exactly what this highly combustible topic needs. If more nurses and other healthcare professionals could do what you just did (that is, furthering discussion instead of trying to shut it down or ostracize dissenting opinions), there is hope for the dark side of vaccines to become brighter.
My intent here is to shed some light upon the dark side of the vaccine industry. There IS a dark, murky, opaque, nebulous, rotten, festering side to vaccines that it seems most nurses (and other medical professionals) do not want to admit or discuss—perhaps for fear of being Wakefielded.
By attempting to bury, hide, or otherwise avoid the discussion of vaccine safety issues by telling me (and those like me) to go away, attacking me personally, or otherwise ridiculing me, you are part of the problem.
As a nurse concerned for patient safety and also in support of vaccines, don't you want them to as safe as they can possibly be? Nurses should be more concerned about vaccine safety than perhaps any other group, given that we are the ones who typically administer them! Furthermore, as more vaccine safety issues are raised as the public continues to awaken to the deception in the mainstream media and scientific fraud, there could come a day that the administering nurse could be held liable for any injuries sustained from a vaccine. Please keep in mind that medical literature highlighting vaccine safety issues and concerns also exists.
So, instead of bowing down to the pharmaceutical companies and their propaganda, why can't we rise up in defense of ourselves and our patients? Many of you have been nurses for decades. Aren't you tired of all the politics and bean counting that goes on in this industry? Instead of trying to avoid, bury, cover, or dismiss this discussion, why not welcome it? Why not defend and refute the points with specifics?
Why not delve into the massive deception surrounding the revocation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's medical license, done in an attempt to silence him and future would-be whistleblowers? Again, Dr. Wakefield is a hero and, in my opinion, is on the level of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Despite losing everything, he is still fighting to reveal the truth. Only the truth could give someone so much energy and passion to continue such a vicious, decades-long fight against a billion-dollar industry. Conversely, liars have little stamina, as lying takes too much energy.
Despite all the rhetoric declaring how safe vaccines are, more than $3 billion in damages have been awarded for vaccine injuries, including autism and death, by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since its inception. If no safety issues exist concerning vaccines, what is the reason for the court in the first place? Furthermore, the VICP is an extremely underutilized program, as most nurses, physicians, parents, teachers, etc. do not even know about it. Why do the mainstream media generally black out the reporting of cases heard before the so-called Vaccine Court? Why don't more people know about the Vaccine Court? Why are its records sealed? Why the lack of transparency?
If vaccines are as safe and effective as they are purported to be, there should be no reason for the move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here, hush-hush stance the mainstream scientific community takes when the subject is raised. Real science is based in truth and welcomes debate. Real science does not run, scattering like cockroaches, from the light.
Real science will defend its position, with additional information and not rhetoric, over and over and over and over and over again. For defending his position that the Earth revolved around the sun, Galileo was convicted of heresy and placed on house arrest, where he remained until he died. Still he never backed down!
The notion that those sharing your position are just simply too tired to discuss this subject because it has been rehashed over and over again, quite frankly, seems dishonest and disingenuous. People can see through that thinly veiled excuse. Incidentally, most of you attacking this discussion (and me personally) are some of the most prolific posters on AllNurses, with regular if not daily contributions, and have a history of thousands of posts over your account lifetimes! Despite wishing this topic to go away, it won't, especially if you continue to avoid discussing the issues. More and more people are asking questions. Surely, this thread may die or be closed, but more, from other people who have genuine questions and want real answers, will follow it.
As the largest group of frontline healthcare workers, nurses can be the group that effects positive change in our industry. As nurses we are fully aware of the politics in healthcare dictated by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. The same companies that manufacture vaccines also manufactured Vioxx and thalidomide. Why can't we admit the flaws and politics regarding vaccines and their safety?
There IS a dark side to vaccines. The sooner nurses and others in healthcare admit to it, the sooner they can change it.
So, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What does this picture, which is likely to meet with harsh criticism and may even be taken down, say?
The text in the image reads:
Lack of Food
Lack of Shelter
Lack of Clean Water
but don't worry
Billions of Dollars in
Vaccines Have Arrived!
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
Your statements on Dr. Andrew Wakefield simply repeat the mainstream media narrative of his supposed scientific fraud. Nevertheless, the story surrounding the retraction of Dr. Wakefield's paper is one of the world's most convoluted.
Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist whose research found an association between certain gut changes and autism, after the administration of the trivalent MMR vaccine.
Regarding the retracted paper, did you know that Dr. Wakefield was one of 13 co-authors?
Why is Dr. Wakefield the only one of the 13 authors vilified in the mainstream media? (Could it be because he dared to openly and publicly suggest that parents opt for the monovalent vaccines? That is, he suggested that parents get the single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines, instead of the patented trivalent MMR. Dr. Wakefield never even suggested that parents not vaccinate their children! Despite all the disinformation, hype, and outright lies, Dr. Wakefield is not anti-vaccine.)
Dr. Wakefield's findings are perhaps amongst the most misrepresented in history. Have you read the conclusion to his infamous paper? If not, here are the last four paragraphs:
I am in no way affiliated with the VAXXED documentary. Quite frankly, I think the documentary only touches upon a few of the many issues surrounding vaccination and is a good STARTING POINT, at best. Those questioning vaccine safety research should follow the money to determine where the vast potential for disinformation lies.
Incidentally, respect for Gandhi seems to be a point of common ground and I love that quote by him in your signature. According to it, it is the person who is ignored who later wins. (Frankly, I am really surprised that you replied to me again, since you already welcomed me to your ignore list once before.)
Nevertheless, Mahatma Gandhi, who I believe was one of the most amazing and enlightened people who ever walked the planet, also said this:
You clearly stated in your first reply to my original post that you hadn't read it in its entirety; so, how do you know whether or not I offered any new information?
Again, I do not think that YouTube videos, in and of themselves, constitute credible evidence. Several times, I clearly labeled them as STARTING POINTS. By the same token, I never suggested that simply Googling something constitutes conducting research either, though doing so can be a STARTING POINT as well.
Nevertheless, just because something appears in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it is necessarily true either. I urge others to research the issues surrounding the peer review process, which is heavily biased toward advertisers' agendas. There is a dark side to peer review that many seem to be overlooking. (The linked image is just a STARTING POINT. However, even Dr. Richard Horton, MD, editor of the Lancet, has gone on record to say that: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.") Peer review is often a highly politicized process.
Again, I have a problem with a great deal of the research supporting vaccines because much of it is funded by vaccine manufacturers. Why is hardly anyone addressing this? Also, there are plenty of peer-reviewed journal articles expressing vaccine safety concern. If peer review is the ultimate authority on matters of science, why should peer-reviewed studies exposing vaccine harm and safety issues be ignored?
I apologize for suggesting that you hadn't watched VAXXED. Although I didn't see anywhere in your posts where you had clearly written that you had seen it, that statement wasn't really just directed at you. It was meant for anyone who has critiqued the film without having seen it (as so happened by many mainstream media reporters after its release). It would have been much better if I had worded that statement as such: "How can anyone honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED without having even watched it?
Nevertheless, since you have seen the film, I am curious as to why you haven't refuted the film's specific points. As the film continues to be seen across the country and is now entering international markets, more and more discussions are going to pop up about it. Nurses who have seen the film, and who still support the current CDC vaccine schedule, are going to have to stand up and refute the film's points for those who still have questions. Ignoring the film and the points that it raises will only create more questions. More are coming!
So, regarding the film, what are your thoughts on all the parents who shared their vaccine horror stories? Do you think they and everyone else in the film were lying?
Thank you for refuting some of my points instead of completely ignoring them. I appreciate intellectual discourse and debate. Also, I agree that "the whole point of science is assuming we could always be wrong." So, although you oppose my viewpoints, we do have at least one speck of common ground.
That said, every point made to refute the specifics you've chosen comes directly from the SkepticalRaptor.com Web site. Skeptical Raptor is a misnomer at best. That site agrees with every conventional, mainstream position on issues of "science." Therefore, Skeptical Raptor (aka Michael Simpson) supports GMOs, pesticides, MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, and every other talking point from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, while basically denouncing all herbal and natural supplements. If you were writing a paper for a nursing class, you could not cite Skeptical Raptor as a legitimate source.
(To be fair, I am not suggesting that every source I have provided would be appropriate to cite in a nursing paper either; that would not be true. However, my original post contains links to a VARIETY OF SOURCES, not just one source that is grotesquely biased. Many of the documents I linked to come directly from the CDC and other governmental agencies, as well as many peer-reviewed journal articles. Incidentally such are articles are considered absolute gospel when they support vaccines, yet are almost categorically ignored or denied when they reveal legitimate concerns about them.)
So, regarding the Skeptical Raptor, where's his skepticism? He has none; he is fully invested in the official narratives on all matters of "science." In my circles, Skeptical Raptor is well known to be a paid media shill for Big Pharma and biotech. Skeptical Raptor's site, almost in its entirety, shames and ridicules "science deniers" of all types with hyperbole and condescension.
Here's what he said about Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
Now that's just silly. Those of us who respond to anti-vaxxers on allnurses are far from scared or afraid.
I commend the usual suspects here who regularly take on anti-vaxx posters with logic, reason, and scientific research.
Of course, there is an inordinate amount of research supporting vaccination. I do not dispute that; how could I? If there weren't so much "research" supporting your position, this debate would be very different.
As I have said in all of my posts in this thread, I dispute the validity and impartiality of that research, in many cases, due to the conflicts of interest held by the sponsors and funders of such research.
Within the medical literature, there is also research that supports my position on questioning vaccine safety. Although I provided a link to a long list of such literature in a previous post, no one here has refuted any of that research, though it is unlikely that you or anyone agreeing with you has taken the time to even consider it.
It seems that your collective mind has been made up, so you will not even look at anything that refutes your position. For me, that is a dangerous mindset and stance to take on any serious matter, and especially matters of health and safety. New information emerges all the time. As more and more vaccines are brought on the market (for everything from acne to Zika) and mandates start popping up all over the country, this debate is going to become even more combustible. It is not going away!
(As a side note, no matter what side a person is on for any given hot topic, it seems that it would be prudent to truly research the other side, if for no other reason than to bolster one's own position. Lawyers do this when they are researching a case. So, those of you who refuse to even look at the information I have presented and repeatedly say "there's no legitimate debate on vaccines, case closed" are not doing your side any favors. It is always wise to know, study, and understand your opponent. Athletes, chess players, poker players, and politicians all study their opponents at great length; this is basic war, debate, or strategy game theory.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu)
As I stated in my previous post, the YouTube links (and a couple of articles) were STARTING POINTS. I do not think that YouTube videos, in and of themselves, constitute credible and verifiable research. They are STARTING POINTS bridging to more information. Similarly, pointing to a single Skeptical Raptor article, as you did in a previous post, does not mean that you have done any real research on the other side of the vaccine issue. In contrast, my original post was loaded with links to journal articles, videos, mainstream media and alternative media pieces, CDC documents, books, blog posts, and more. Although I have been attacked personally, no one has critiqued any of the documentation I offered.
Are you seriously saying that the pharmaceutical companies add ingredients to vaccines that they don't tell us about?
I'm not the government. But in my limited sphere of influence I shut down anti vaxxers as hard and fast as I can. I do a lot of in hospital teaching of nursing students, new hires, medical students, interns and residents. I teach a variety of classes and re-fresher classes in our SimMan lab. I will shut down an anti vaxxer immediately and hard. I am not in charge of hiring and firing for any department. But many of the nurse managers and I are long time friends. If I hear a (for example) nursing student express anti vaxx opinions I will make sure s/he is not hired at our facility.
You might be surprised that I appreciate your pointing out that vaccines are not administered intravenously. They certainly are not!
Originally, I wrote this piece with the layperson in mind (and have shared it with lay groups as well). Leave it to detail-oriented nurses such as yourself to correct such errors! I can happily admit when I am wrong. I am human and, therefore, not perfect.
Nevertheless, I am dismayed that you admit that you did not even read my original post in its entirety. That's the equivalent of covering one's ears in an oral debate or argument because he/she doesn't want to hear what the other party has to say. How can you honestly refute my points, if you haven't even read them? How can you honestly critique a documentary like VAXXED, if you haven't even watched it?
As should be very obvious to sincere readers of this thread, you have not refuted any of the specific vaccine safety concerns I listed in my original post. Instead, you've launched ad hominem attacks against me, such as trying to discredit me by suggesting that I am not a licensed registered nurse. I certainly am ... and my journey through nursing school is well documented on AllNurses.com. How dare I have a dissenting opinions from the group?
All you have said, really, is that there is no legitimate debate on vaccines because the powers that be say so. Nevertheless, there is always another side to a story and, often, there are many facets or sides. You have made it clear that you are not open to hearing new or other information. To me, that is not a scientific approach or scientific thinking, which is always open to probing and asking questions. No real breakthrough has ever occurred by adhering to the status quo. A departure from conventional thinking is required for any kind of significant progress, regardless of field.
There was a time when the scientific literature encouraged and supported smoking with all kinds of "facts" proving its benefits. Research can be crafted to paint any picture its sponsors wish to depict. As I discussed in my original post, most vaccine research is bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccines. How can anyone, whether for or against vaccines, not see the conflict of interest therein?
Furthermore, I fully expected to be attacked and ridiculed when I posted this information. All of us who have researched the other side of this issue understand that it goes with the territory. That's the price for taking a stand and speaking out on an issue that is highly inflammable. I don't mind standing in the arena and weathering the blows I get.
Still, for anyone who has an open mind and is willing to, at the very least, consider additional information, I hope you'll dig deeply and do your own research. Here are a few very basic STARTING POINTS:
If You Think Your Kid's Vaccines are Safe, DON'T Watch This! - YouTube
Pro-Vaxers Debunk THIS! - Vaccination Truth w/ Dr. Suzanne Humphries - YouTube
Vaccine injury denialism will get clobbered by the tipping point | Levi Quackenboss
CDC: You're Fired. Autism Coverup Exposed. - Kelly Brogan MD
VACCINE HOLOCAUST EXPLAINED by the Health Ranger - YouTube
Interestingly, you will find that some of these physicians are no longer practicing, have been labeled as quacks, or have been blackballed by their peers. The practice of medicine, like nursing, is highly politicized and often does not allow room for dissenting opinions to be heard. Dissenters are ridiculed and ostracized.
Finally, what may really, really surprise you is that I am not necessarily anti-vaccine. Allow me to explain. While I find the THEORY of vaccination plausible, I do not believe vaccination is necessary. Nevertheless, for those who believe they are, I wish there were SAFE vaccines that worked as purported and that pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry were honest, transparent entities truly concerned for the well-being of mankind. My problem with vaccines, more than anything else, is the fact that the research is biased, deceptive, and riddled with conflicts of interest; they contain ingredients that are known to be unsafe and even downright dangerous; and that they are being mandated despite KNOWN safety risks. I do not believe the government, any entity, or any person should be able to force another to have a medical intervention of any kind.
Despite your attacks, I appreciate your comments because they shed light on how highly combustible this topic is. In certain professional circles, like nursing and medicine, vaccines cannot be discussed without the group personally attacking the few dissenters willing to speak up. Hopefully, some readers of this thread will see through this and take the time to uncover what's behind the curtain. The more the mainstream media and the medical industry try to silence opposition by simply repeating that vaccine science has been settled, case closed, the more people will start questioning why.
With all due respect, I am not suggesting that we are losing our First Amendment rights because of what can or can't be discussed on AllNurses. However, the topics of threads that get attacked or closed (which could be considered a form of censorship at times) on AllNurses often reflect the threats against the First Amendment rights in society at large.
We are losing our First Amendment rights because the powers that be censor opposing information. The hotbed that is the discussion of vaccines is just one example of the extremely one-sided nature of the vaccine discussion in the mainstream media, medical journals, and other "information" sources. When the documentary, VAXXED, was released, the mainstream press attacked it viciously by so-called journalists who often admitted in their critiques that they hadn't even seen the film.
Several nurses here have referred to the film as being anti-vaccine, which it is not. It is a documentary about CDC fraud in relation to the scientific findings that claim there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. How many of the nurses here who have referred to the film as anti-vaccine have actually seen it? It would seem that in order to honestly critique a film, one would have to watch it.
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post.
I believe that the First Amendment is viciously under attack in the US. I wrote that "We are losing" freedom of speech, in that there's an ongoing culture in the media, healthcare, and other industries that is progressively censoring and stifling dissenting opinions. I do not feel the the process is complete. I do not feel that I have lost that right entirely ... yet.
I am strongly against the corruption in scientific research that affects the "findings" for drugs and vaccines. However, in the larger context, I am deeply concerned that debate and discussion is missing on such important topics at the ground level. It is sad that we nurses can't even discuss these issues without attacking each other.
Here's an example of what can happen when a respected mainstream blogger crosses into the forbidden territory that is vaccines; his post was taken down and his account was blocked without warning, after 8 years of publishing on Huffington Post. This kind of censorship happens all the time, but there is no mainstream media coverage of such events. Similarly, Dr. Michael Savage, who has been on the radio for 20+ years, recently had his nationwide radio show canceled, overnight, due to his opinions on this upcoming presidential election. A similar thing happened to Dr. Drew.
On a different note, in an effort to further this discussion on vaccines, I would like to hear opinions as to why newborn babies are routinely administered hepatitis B shots at birth, even when their mothers test negative to the disease? What are the benefits of receiving a hepatitis B shot for a baby who is, obviously, not at risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease? (Again, mom is negative.)
No one could honestly answer those questions for me in nursing school ... and to this day, so far, still no one can.
If anyone honestly researches this issue, I believe they will find that health policy (which is industry influenced) is the reason for the administration of these shots; health benefits are not a factor. So, why put newborns at risk when the known side effects of the shot are many?
I encourage my fellow nurses to start researching the hepatitis B vaccine for babies as a starting point to, at the very least, realizing that there's a lot of information on vaccines that most have never seen.
Advertise With Us