We were discussing the Disneryland measles outbreak at work, and I was appalled to find some of my co-workers refuse to vaccinate their kids. They (grudgingly) receive the vaccines they need to remain employed, but doubt their safety/necessity for their kids.
I must say, I am absolutley stunned. How can one be a nurse and deny science?
As a nurse, you should darn well know what the scientific method entails and what phrases such as "evidence based" and "peer reviewed" mean.
I have to say, I have lost most of my respect for the nurses and mistrust their judgement; after all, if they deny science, on what premise are they basing their practices?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
MMR at sexual activity because of Rubella.
I made sure my kids were fully vaccinated for MMR by adolescence as well. My son for the mumps, and my daughter for the rubella. It has nothing to do with STIs, and everything to do with the diseases themselves and WHAT/WHY they are protective against.
I made sure my kids were fully vaccinated for MMR by adolescence as well. My son for the mumps, and my daughter for the rubella. It has nothing to do with STIs, and everything to do with the diseases themselves and WHAT/WHY they are protective against.
If you are going to immunize your kids at 12-14 years of age then why not vaccinate them at the appropriate time and gain more benefit for the same risk? It makes no sense.
That and most realistic parents would admit they are pretty bad at diagnosing at what age their kids will be sexually active let alone a year or more prior to them being sexually active.
(Edited to add that I have two quotes in this response - one legitimately from BostonFNP, the other from HolisticallyMinded in another thread. The one from Holistically says it's from Boston, but it is a glitch on AN.)
I was at my kid's dance practice when I stumbled onto your post, Boston, and I found myself wondering the same thing. So I looked. Holistically has been here sinc 2006, and for such a long-standing member, she has very few posts, so it didn't take very long to get to know her a little.
I 2006, Holistically was a nutritionist (which she indicates gave a stronger science background than nursing) working with oncology/hematology pediatric patients. That year, she applied to, and went back to school. Her employer paid for her to attend an ASN program. She completed it in 2009. Her first year as a nurse, she spent doing home health with a pediatric population. Her second year, she spent in LTC/SNF. After that, she spent 11 months on a medical inpatient unit, which she hated. She managed to go back to her old LTC/SNF per diem. At this point, it was per diem. There is a post in 2011 saying she was going to get her BS or BSN, but nothing else was mentioned about that.
She is presently in her early 40s, and is a mom. Her tenure as a nutritionist was stated to be 5 years in 2006, 10 years in 2008. In 2012, she was working toward being a lactation consultant, and also states she was actively talking people out of going to nursing school. Many of her posts talk about how much she really dislikes nursing. It also appears she trusts napturopathy and her ND far deeper than she trusts certain aspects of medical care and research.
She states in one post she doesn't understand why nurses would work in a hospital, and that those of us who do must do it for the "status", and she equates hospital work to be akin to "slave labor". She feels that people who want to work in hospitals must be a bunch of 20-somethings with no work experience ever, and that "most" nurses learn everything on the job, and don't understand why we do any of what we do. She also says she will never believe a person who says that they never cut and paste assessment data from previously charted assessments. She also feels that those of us who felt "called" to nursing "need to stop the Florence Nightingale myth since it is highly damaging". (I'm not actually sure what that means.......?) She also feels that pregnant women should be warned that "death of a baby is sometimes a natural consequence of pregnancy", which is a strange thing to read from a person I would guess believes that pregnancy is actually a healthy, normal part of life. But, I digress.
There was another vaccination thread in which she stated that no one has any idea how these things work. That's actually why I kept reading beyond the simple search of her education background. After seeing her say twice that none of us knows how any of this works, I wondered what she believes is the way vaccination works. After reading almost every single post she wrote, I found this -
Holistically - you fail deeply at understanding the very POINT of vaccination, and it is blindingly obvious in the 3rd sentence (or is it the second?). You discuss here the immune process of HEALTHY PEOPLE. I really don't think YOU understand how this works. Unless maybe you have a better explanation than the one you offered here?
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
If you are going to immunize your kids at 12-14 years of age then why not vaccinate them at the appropriate time and gain more benefit for the same risk? It makes no sense.
That and most realistic parents would admit they are pretty bad at diagnosing at what age their kids will be sexually active let alone a year or more prior to them being sexually active.
Sent from my iPhone.
I don't start vaccinating them at 12-14 years. I make sure they're done by 12-14 years. My oldest (16) is done. My middle (14) is done except for 2 more HPV. My youngest (6) started shots 2 years ago.
My oldest child is fully protected, and has been for a couple years. My middle child is developmentally and physically delayed; I'm quite confident that I haven't misdiagnosed sexual activity. Nevertheless, with her, it's pregnancy, rather than sexual maturity, that I'm concerned about. And I know she is not pregnant, so I think we're okay.
I don't start vaccinating them at 12-14 years. I make sure they're done by 12-14 years. My oldest (16) is done. My middle (14) is done except for 2 more HPV. My youngest (6) started shots 2 years ago.
My oldest child is fully protected, and has been for a couple years. My middle child is developmentally and physically delayed; I'm quite confident that I haven't misdiagnosed sexual activity. Nevertheless, with her, it's pregnancy, rather than sexual maturity, that I'm concerned about. And I know she is not pregnant, so I think we're okay.
Even if you are 100% correct in your kids' sexual maturity, which itself is a risk. The risk of developing serious complications or death from measles/mumps in childhood remains.
So what's the purpose in delaying vaccination? All that does is reduce the vaccine's benefit while maintaining the same risk (or perhaps increasing it).
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Also, in general it's adolescence, not sexual activity, that I wanted to make sure they were protected by (really ****** sentence structure, sorry). And if you have any understanding of Tanner, you can predict when adolescence will occur within a year or two.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Even if you are 100% correct in your kids' sexual maturity, which itself is a risk. The risk of developing serious complications or death from measles/mumps in childhood remains.
So what's the purpose in delaying vaccination? All that does is reduce the vaccine's benefit while maintaining the same risk (or perhaps increasing it).
Sent from my iPhone.
Because I really believe that it affects a person's developing immune system (which is not mature until around 4-5 years) to inundate them with dozens of vaccines as infants. With a healthy immune system, and modern medicine, most of these diseases are not death sentences for most people. So I am comfortable with the risks vs. benefits that I took with delaying, then slowing introducing selective vaccines, making conscious and thoughtful decisions as to what vaccines, when, to introduce.
I am very concerned with the huge increase in autoimmune diseases, and I have not been convinced that the inundation of dozens of vaccines in infancy doesn't have anything to do with it.
Because I really believe that it affects a person's developing immune system (which is not mature until around 4-5 years) to inundate them with dozens of vaccines as infants. With a healthy immune system, and modern medicine, most of these diseases are not death sentences for most people. So I am comfortable with the risks vs. benefits that I took with delaying, then slowing introducing selective vaccines, making conscious and thoughtful decisions as to what vaccines, when, to introduce.
I am very concerned with the huge increase in autoimmune diseases, and I have not been convinced that the inundation of dozens of vaccines in infancy doesn't have anything to do with it.
And likewise I am very concerned about the huge increase in potentially fatal previously eradicated (or nearly eradicated) illness in this country.
As for the AI hypothesis it has long been refuted. There is a ton of data on this and it's hard to scientifically argue that there is anything more than a loose incidental correlation between the two.
"Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how vaccines might cause allergic or autoimmune diseases. However, flaws in proposed mechanisms are consistent with large well-controlled epidemiologic studies that do not support the hypothesis that vaccines cause chronic diseases. Furthermore, because infections with wild-type bacteria or viruses are more likely to expose self-antigens and induce levels of cytokines greater than that found after immunization with attenuated or avirulent pathogens, some vaccines are probably more likely to prevent or modify than cause or exacerbate autoimmune diseases (eg, Lyme vaccine for genetically susceptible individuals, or influenza vaccine for patients with multiple sclerosis)."
Offit, P. A., & Hackett, C. J. (2003). Addressing parents' concerns: do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases?. Pediatrics, 111(3), 653-659.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
There are a lot of studies that do demonstrate a link between the increase of vaccines and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases. Yes, I know correlation does not equal causation. Nevertheless, the correlation is enough that it is concerning to me. I could post citations as well, but I'm not going to. Because I'm not trying to convince anyone here.
There are a lot of studies that do demonstrate a link between the increase of vaccines and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases. Yes, I know correlation does not equal causation. Nevertheless, the correlation is enough that it is concerning to me. I could post citations as well, but I'm not going to. Because I'm not trying to convince anyone here.
That is exactly the danger in correlation compared to causation.
I bet I can graph the increase in AI diseases compared with the increased use of the Internet, increased yoga, increased use of television, increased outsourcing of jobs to India, increased membership of allnurses.com, etc and have a similar correlation.
klone, MSN, RN
14,857 Posts
MMR at sexual activity because of Rubella.
I made sure my kids were fully vaccinated for MMR by adolescence as well. My son for the mumps, and my daughter for the rubella. It has nothing to do with STIs, and everything to do with the diseases themselves and WHAT/WHY they are protective against.