Latest Comments by 777RN

777RN 9,801 Views

Joined: Mar 12, '09; Posts: 310 (21% Liked) ; Likes: 114
from US
Specialty: 4+ year(s) of experience in Geriatrics, dementia, hospice

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 3


    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!

  • 0


    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.

  • 0


    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!

  • 2
    MassED and herring_RN like this.

    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.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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."
    —George Orwell

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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:

    We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.

    If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence22 or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.23 A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.15 In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24 C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains.

    Urinary methylmalonic-acid concentrations were raised in most of the children, a finding indicative of a functional vitamin B12 deficiency. Although vitamin B12 concentrations were normal, serum B12 is not a good measure of functional B12 status.25 Urinary methylmalonic-acid excretion is increased in disorders such as Crohn's disease, in which cobalamin excreted in bile is not reabsorbed. A similar problem may have occurred in the children in our study. Vitamin B12 is essential for myelinogenesis in the developing central nervous system, a process that is not complete until around the age of 10 years. B12 deficiency may, therefore, be a contributory factor in the developmental regression.26

    We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

    Dr. Wakefield's paper clearly stated that it "did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

    Here is the citation of the paper that was retracted:

    Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., ... & Valentine, A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641.

    During his career, Dr. Wakefield has contributed to more than 100 scientific papers. Interestingly, only the one cited above has been retracted. Many researchers began piggybacking on that now infamous paper, achieving similar findings. By retracting Wakefield's paper, the findings of those 700-plus papers citing it were called into question too, thereby blocking further research in that vein.

    During the extremely convoluted proceedings to discredit the paper, Dr. Wakefield and his co-author, Dr. J. A. Walker-Smith, had their medical licenses revoked. Dr. Walker-Smith's medical license has since been reinstated (very quietly). Where's the US mainstream media coverage on that? Fortunately, for Dr. Walker-Smith, his malpractice insurance covered the legal expense of overturning the case due to "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion"; unfortunately, for Dr. Wakefield, his insurance did not cover such expense.

    For more information on the controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield, please consider reading Science For Sale by Dr. David L. Lewis, whose own scientific career was jeopardized when he blew the whistle on EPA fraud.

    In summary, Dr. Wakefield's paper was retracted for political reasons; i.e., to protect the profits of the trivalent MMR manufacturer and to block further research into the safety issues surrounding the vaccine.

    So pervasive is the libel and slander surrounding Dr. Wakefield's case that the Urban Dictionary lists the term "Wakefielded" or "Wakefield'ed" and defines it as such:

    When pharma controls mainstream media and uses blackmail, threatens, trolls, bribes, slanders and lies in an attempt to discredit and destroy any researcher or medical professional's reputation and career who has attempted to highlight the corruption and lack of pharmaceutical accountability and safety.

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield will one day be publicly exonerated. May justice be served upon those who have intentionally misrepresented and slandered him for personal gain.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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:

    Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time. Conscientious objectors to vaccination should stand alone, if need be, against the whole world, in defense of their conviction.

    And so, I will gladly continue to stand up in defense of my conviction.

  • 0


    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?

    • What did you think about the very high-profile celebrity physicians who expressed concerns about CDC transparency after reviewing the evidence presented (and who risked being blackballed and ostracized by their peers by going on record to state so)? One physician, who was pregnant, clearly stated that she would not give the MMR to her unborn child after reviewing the evidence in the film. What are your thoughts on that?
    • What do you make of Dr. William Thompson's hiring a whistleblower attorney and the statement on his atttorney's website admitting that he and his colleagues omitted statistically significant data regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine in their 2004 article in the journal, Pediatrics?
    • What do you make of Congressman Bill Posey's plea to his fellow congressmen to investigate the CDC for scientific fraud in regards to the aforementioned MMR study and Dr. Thompson's handing over thousands of documents to Mr. Posey's office?

    As I also said in several posts, I don't think that I have lost or am losing my First Amendment rights because you (or other nurses here) wanted to shut down my original post. Nevertheless, AllNurses is a microcosm of what's going on in society at large, where dissenting opinions are often censored in our government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media.

    Finally, my intent is never to be condescending. Quite frankly, I have great respect for your nursing experience and that of others here, despite strongly disagreeing with most posting in this thread. Nursing is a tough job and not for the faint of heart.

    We nurses are the front lines of health care and by sheer numbers we can be the greatest force for change. As nurses, we all know very well that the health care industry is highly politicized and controlled by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries: everything from our nurse-patient ratios to the ever-increasing amount of documentation required of us. Why can't we see this, as a group, where vaccine policy is concerned? We all know that much of our jobs is dictated by accountants who are only concerned about the bottom line.

    Like almost everything else in this industry, vaccine policy is also highly politicized. Ultimately, nurses, due to our sheer numbers, are the ones who can change that.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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 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:

    a callous, narcissistic ex-physician who has an intense disregard for human life, specifically children. Known as one of the greatest scientific fraudsters of the last 100 years, he is the de facto demigod of the Evil Cult of Antivaccination. After his article claiming that MMR vaccine (for the prevention of measles, mumps and rubella) caused autism was retracted by the medical journal, Wakefield moved to Texas to plot his revenge on the world.

    Talk about media spin and talking points! Anyone who is honest and has done ANY research outside of what's said in the mainstream media knows that the above description is not only absolutely ridiculous (yes, I realize that Skeptical Raptor was attempting to be facetious and sarcastic, to some extent), but also patently false. Dr. Wakefield is fighting the good fight to share the truth ... and that's why the science gatekeepers are so afraid of him; his research revealed a truth that would have likely resulted in billions of dollars in losses for GlaxoSmithKline. So instead, the powers that be discredited him and destroyed his career.

    Again, I wholeheartedly support Dr. Andrew Wakefield and emphatically state that he is hero. For those willing to review additional information, please consider reading the chapter in Science For Sale that provides a concise explanation of the Wakefield case from another perspective or consider checking this out.

    Incidentally, almost every discussion forum site, especially ones with large followings, has media shills (paid or otherwise) whose job is topic or knowledge gatekeeping; i.e., to quell dissension on controversial scientific issues (usually by personally attacking and ridiculing the dissenters, while avoiding engagement on the issues they raise).

    Also, for those who say they ignore dissenters because they are simply too tired to rehash the same-old, same-old, you will need to replenish your energy stores. This issue is going to become a bigger, hotter, stinkier mess, as the public continues to wake up to the level of deception in the mainstream media (and other advertising-supported publications) and for reasons I have mentioned in other posts.


    “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  • 1
    AndyB likes this.

    Quote from Spidey's mom
    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.
    Spidey's mom:

    With all due respect, none of the posters who have criticized or ridiculed me in this post have offered ANY logic, reason, or scientific research to refute my arguments. Instead, they have simply parroted the mainstream media talking points that "vaccines are safe and effective" and that "there's no legitimate debate on vaccines, case closed." No one from your perspective has debated or truly discussed anything. Repeating the same thing over and over is not providing logic, reason, or scientific research; it's adhering to dogma. Yes, the "usual suspects" to whom you refer have taken me on, but primarily only with insults and ridicule.

    Meanwhile, they have completely ignored the very long list of concerns presented in my posts, similar to how the mainstream media in this country often does a complete blackout of certain stories in order to prevent placing such topics in the spotlight of public scrutiny. In relation to vaccines, two (of many) examples of US mainstream media (MSM) blackouts are:

    Don't those seem like newsworthy stories? Or is it more important to report on Brad and Angelina's impending divorce?

    It's far too easy to slap the "anti-vaxx" and "anti-vaccine" label on any discussion that questions vaccine safety, thereby stifling or completely eliminating discussion of the real issues within nursing and similar circles. In general, medical professionals descend upon anyone who dares to question vaccine safety like a wake of vultures upon their prey.

    "Anti-vaxx" and "anti-vaccine" labels have been so distorted that simply mentioning those words results in many nurses covering their ears or otherwise avoiding the discussion at hand, whether intentionally or subconsciously. Groupthink is especially dangerous where safety is concerned.

    However, if you and those who agree with you are not afraid of REAL debate or of challenging your own beliefs, why hasn't anyone commented on the vaccine SAFETY issues raised by the few of us raising them here? As nurses, we are all concerned about patient safety and want to make sure that the interventions our patients receive are as safe as they can possibly be. Please keep in mind that EVERY nurse or physician who openly questions vaccine safety has had to challenge his/her previously held beliefs and everything s/he was taught about vaccines during his/her education ... and often does so at great personal or professional risk.

    Some real issues that warrant discussion by anyone truly concerned about vaccine-related patient safety include:

    Why are newborn babies routinely given an aluminum-containing vaccine, namely the hepatitis B shot, even when their mothers are hepatitis negative? (Most of us don't even want to cook with aluminum pots and pans because the science says that it contributes to dementia.)

    Why are so many toxic ingredients in so many vaccines? Do they really need to be in there?

    Why are patients routinely given a flu shot on the first day of a hospital stay, even when they have impaired kidney function or other toxin- or waste-clearing issues (and even when it's not "flu" season!)?

    Why has the US government paid out billions of dollars via the Vaccine Court to families of children who were admittedly injured by vaccines? And why don't most people, including many physicians and nurses, even know about the Vaccine Court?

    Why are pharmaceutical companies indemnified from any harm caused by vaccines? That is, why can't pharmaceutical companies be directly sued by injured parties for damages in the United States? (By the way, pharmaceutical companies can be sued for vaccine injuries directly in other countries, hence the Italian Supreme Court case. Also, even here in the US, they can be sued for other drug-induced injuries, hence all the late-night, class-action lawsuit ads against them. Why were vaccines exempted from this policy in 1986 by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Does a billion-dollar industry really need government indemnification for its products if they are so safe? Does legal immunity encourage vaccine manufacturers to make their products as safe as possible, given that they can't be sued if something goes wrong?)

    Is anyone concerned about a top-level CDC scientist admitting that he and his colleagues omitted crucial data in a study that has become the go-to study claiming no link between the MMR vaccine and autism? (Or, would you rather casually dismiss such claims, in order to prevent having to challenge your own beliefs, biases, and assumptions?)

    When new information emerges, it is irresponsible and downright dangerous to completely ignore it, regardless of the source. All information should be scrutinized. It seems that even the most diehard pro-vaccine nurse should be concerned about potential governmental and pharmaceutical company fraud. A quick perusal of other posts throughout this site suggests that many nurses have concerns about government and pharmaceutical transparency (or lack thereof). Why is that concern thrown out the window when it comes to vaccines? How is it that the government and pharmaceutical companies all of a sudden become exceptionally trustworthy entities beyond reproach, among so many of us, but only when vaccines are concerned?

    The Church of Science is a dogmatic religion. Many within the scientific community revere it so much that they are unable, unwilling, or afraid to question or challenge any of its commandments. While theologians of all types banter back and forth, debating passages within their respective scriptures, it seems many nurses and physicians are unable to question anything that appears in the "scriptures" of medical and nursing journals. However, unlike the world's holy scriptures, which are believed by so many to be divinely inspired, medical and other industry journals certainly are not; instead, they are for-profit, advertising- and subscription-supported publications written by mere mortals.

    It should be very obvious to any open-minded person that just because something appears in a medical journal does not mean that it is gospel. Scientific "facts" flip flop, reverse, or otherwise change over time (often based on who's funding the research). For example, at one point in history, it was scientific "fact" that the trans fat in margarine is healthier than the saturated fat in butter, that smoking is good for you, and that the world is flat.

    The very studies that appear in medical (and other industry) journals are often the ones that have the most money behind them (in terms of research budget and expected profit), period. That's why billions of dollars are spent researching very specific pharmacological cures for a variety of diseases while completely ignoring the multitude of natural therapies for such diseases that have been shown to be effective, via empirical observation, sometimes for thousands of years (but that's another story altogether).

    Too many of us worship science to the point that we will deny what we see right before our very eyes. Oftentimes, when parents believe their child may be having an adverse vaccine reaction, nurses and physicians will quickly dismiss parental concerns, chocking up such reaction to coincidence. (Such reaction couldn't possibly be from the vaccine the child received 24 , 48, or 72 hours earlier, could it?) As medical professionals, aren't we are supposed to listen to our patients instead of dismissing them?

    Quite frankly, by refusing to refute any of the concerns raised by the opposing side of the vaccine debate with any real logic, reason, or scientific research, your camp will ultimately lose credibility with people who have legitimate questions and who are paying attention. Those who attempt to hijack the vaccine-safety discussion by simply shutting it down will not be able to do so forever. This issue is only going to become more volcanic as additional vaccines hit the market and more mandates are imposed.


    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    ~Michael Crichton, MD
    CalTech Lecture, 2003

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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?
    No. That is not what I am saying! Here is a link from the CDC Web site of vaccine ingredients: Any rational person would question why many of those ingredients are in vaccines.

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield

    An entire library of books could be written about what has happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield. As to be expected by those of us on the other side of this debate, Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified by the mainstream media, the medical establishment, medical journals, most of his colleagues, academia, and more. The medical establishment does not take well to dissenting and opposing viewpoints that jeopardize the profits of their sponsors. For those who have only heard (and believe) what the mainstream media has said about Dr. Wakefield, your believing that he is a quack scientist who's just trying to stir up trouble, where none exists, is warranted.

    However, for those of us who have researched beyond the mainstream media hype and spin, we know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is one of the most courageous, upstanding men on planet Earth today. He has been made an example of, to quiet other would-be whistleblowers.

    The same media that have covered up 40 years of sexual assault on the parts of Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby are the same media that have slandered Dr. Wakefield, who despite basically losing everything, is still fighting to get the truth out. Just like this debate, Dr. Wakefield isn't going away.

    For those who are open to learning more about Dr. Wakefield, without media hype and spin, consider reaching out to the families of the vaccine-injured children he has helped or reading some information about him on the VAXXED Web site. Dr. Wakefield is a hero in those circles and in my book. Del Bigtree, who helped produce VAXXED, put his entire mainstream production career on the line to work on the documentary, after thoroughly investigating Dr. Wakefield. I believe no amount of money could make amends for the slander and libel spewed upon Dr. Wakefield, who has endured such injustices just because he has been willing to tell the truth that could jeopardize pharmaceutical company profits and government vaccine agendas.

    The only common ground, it seems, is that we speak our opinions on this matter because we are concerned for the health and safety of others. While I believe you are sincere, I also believe that you have missed (admittedly, it can be hard to find, as it is buried deeply below hype and media spin) or willfully ignored a lot of research, empirical evidence, and other information that provides a different picture of vaccine safety. Similarly, healthcare professionals who shut down opposing viewpoints, unwilling to even entertain other perspectives, undermine safety in the workplace and contribute to the hierarchical, paternalistic culture of healthcare.

    Nevertheless, given that your concern is real, you might consider watching this video from Dr. Sam Eggertsen, MD, a board-certified family physician of 35+ years: Why do parents refuse to vaccinate their children?

    Though our perspectives on this matter could not be more different, I appreciate your comments.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    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.
    Wow! I am shaking my head in disbelief! Does anyone else find the above quote to be troubling?

    PMFB-RN, such behavior is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to the highly politicized nature of the vaccine debate. So, in your mind, there is absolutely no room for dissenting opinion and you will make sure to force it out of your circle of influence. You are not even willing to hear counterarguments to your position and fully admit that you act as a knowledge gatekeeper in your place of employment. When a person or group refuses to hear new or additional information, he/she/they effectively stop learning and stop growing! Do you consider yourself to be open-minded? Open-mindedness is at the heart of scientific discovery.

    Such gatekeeping is exactly what happens, more often than not, in the editorial departments within medical and nursing journals when a submission of dissenting opinion lands on an editor's desk, given that the pharmaceutical companies effectively own such journals via their advertising dollars. (I have been an editor in a different field and have witnessed firsthand how advertising dollars DIRECTLY AFFECT EDITORIAL CONTENT! In short, a publication will almost never challenge the source of its income.) This is one of the reasons that the research, upon which you are basing your entire argument, is biased, flawed, skewed, and downright deceptive at times. The peer review process can also be used as a form of knowledge gatekeeping.

    You have repeatedly stated that there is no legitimate debate regarding vaccines, but you have not refuted the safety concerns I discussed. Safety is supposed to be our foremost concern as nurses. Since you are not the one filling the vials in a vaccine production facility, how can you speak with such certainty that what's going in those vials is safe? You have said absolutely nothing about vaccine ingredients. Please remember that the same pharmaceutical companies who make billions off of "breakthrough" drugs are later settling class-action lawsuits for all the morbidity and mortality caused by those very drugs, whose safety studies were questionable to be begin with. Why do you think vaccine safety studies are any different? The same companies are involved.

    Regardless of one's position on vaccines, EVERY SINGLE NURSE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE SUBSTANCES CONTAINED IN VACCINE VIALS. It would be great if you would forget about quelling debate and speak to this.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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 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.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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.

  • 1
    MassED likes this.


    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.