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?
Could someone who believes the purpose of vaccines is some nefarious population control scheme please, please explain how it's supposed to work? Millions of deaths have been prevented, the "population control" plan seems to be seriously flawed..
I do find the idea of the Central Bank being secretly in charge of healthcare policy rather (extremely) far-fetched. But lets pretend for a moment that this is true and that some secret cabal of billionaires control the Central Bank.
What is their objective? A person can only become a billionaire because there is an abundance of worker bees. Why would they wish to decimate the "worker bee" population? I don't know how billionaires feel and think about workers bees, but they certainly need them in order to maintain their status as the über-wealthy.
If the worker bee population was drastically reduced and the world was mostly inhabited by billionaires, the poor billionaires would be forced to ask their buddies at the various Central Banks to print them some money.. Inflation... And the formerly so powerful billionaire is reduced to a mere millionaire.. or worse...
Not only is the alleged vaccine "population control" plan a failure, but the purpose of one (if it actually had existed), is counter-productive.
(partial quote)
I don't think that you fully understand the definition of the scientific meaning of the word theory. When scientists use the word theory as in "theory of evolution", they are not expressing reservations of its' truth. (By the way, it is scientists who have presented the theory of evolution, not "the authorities").
In everyday usage "theory" will often be used to describe speculation or a hunch. That's not how the word is used by scientists. To a scientist a theory is a explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. No amount of validation will ever change a theory into law. Fossils and large amounts of other evidence provides clear, unambiguous and compelling indirect evidence that organisms have evolved through time.
Never mind.
I've actually have checked out the two sites you mention on several occasions, they have previously been referenced as "sources" by other vaccine opposers. I can't really say this in a polite way. I think the content is completely loopy. It's blatantly and painfully unscientific and I don't think that a healthcare professional searching for information about vaccines on these sites, can be referred to as "keeping an open mind". We should all know better than to buy into the outlandish "information" presented there. They are (ill-informed and often paranoid) opinions, not scientific research.
I don't as much laugh at Alex Jones' Infowars as I'm saddened by the fact that so many people seem to believe what's written there. I find it deeply troubling that some healthcare professionals are included in this group. If the percentage of children who receive for example the MMR immunization vaccine drops, we will see tragic consequences.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Okay, I'm back.
Vial, T., & Descotes, J. (2004, Mar-Apr). Autoimmune diseases and vaccinations. Eur J Dermatol, 14(2), 86-90.
The available evidence derived from several negative epidemiological studies is reassuring and at least indicates that vaccines are not a major cause of autoimmune diseases. However, there are still uncertainties as to whether a susceptible subpopulation may be at a higher risk of developing an autoimmune disease without causing an overall increase in the disease incidence. Based on selected examples, this review highlights the difficulties in assessing this issue. We suggest that a potential link between vaccines and autoimmune diseases cannot be definitely ruled out and should be carefully explored during the development of new candidate vaccines.
Orbach, H., Agmon-Levin, N., & Zandmon-Goddard, G. (2010, February). Vaccines and autoimmune diseases of the adult. Discov Med, 9(45), 90-7.
Shoenfeld, Y., & Aron-Maor, A. (2000, Feb). Vaccination and autoimmunity-'vaccinosis': a dangerous liaison? J Autoimmun, 14(1), 1-10.
The question of a connection between vaccination and autoimmune illness (or phenomena) is surrounded by controversy. A heated debate is going on regarding the causality between vaccines, such as measles and anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV), and multiple sclerosis (MS). Brain antibodies as well as clinical symptoms have been found in patients vaccinated against those diseases. Other autoimmune illnesses have been associated with vaccinations. Tetorifice toxoid, influenza vaccines, polio vaccine, and others, have been related to phenomena ranging from autoantibodies production to full-blown illness (such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA)).
There are more, but I'm not going to go on. I'm not posting this to change anyone's mind. I just want to show that, yes, there really are health professionals and scientists who are concerned about the huge amounts of vaccinations that are given to infants with immature immune systems, and the increase in AI diseases in the past 50 years. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my ass. It's concerning enough to me that I chose to go slow with my kids' vaccines, and not immunize them with every single vaccine that is available, but use thoughtful discernment on which vaccines I will choose, and when. I'm not anti-vax. But I don't blindly follow the AAP vaccine schedule, either.
I just want to show that, yes, there really are health professionals and scientists who are concerned about the huge amounts of vaccinations that are given to infants with immature immune systems, and the increase in AI diseases in the past 50 years.
There is a big difference from being concern about and investigating (which is the scientific process in action) and making assumptions/conclusions that are not supported by data (which is pseudo-science). I hope researchers keep examining this and every other topic as that is the definition of science.
That being said; there is no evidence here that even implies causative link between vaccines and AI diseases. Directly from the cited works:
Vial, T., & Descotes, J. (2004, Mar-Apr). Autoimmune diseases and vaccinations. Eur J Dermatol, 14(2), 86-90.
"The available evidence derived from several negative epidemiological studies is reassuring and at least indicates that vaccines are not a major cause of autoimmune diseases."
This reflects the extant data from a number of major studies that have been consistent in concluding that there is no causative link between vaccines and AI diseases. Could vaccines play a small role in AI disease development, feasibly yes, see below.
Orbach, H., Agmon-Levin, N., & Zandmon-Goddard, G. (2010, February). Vaccines and autoimmune diseases of the adult. Discov Med, 9(45), 90-7.
"Infectious agents contribute to the environmental factors involved in the development of autoimmune diseases possibly through molecular mimicry mechanisms. Hence, it is feasible that vaccinations may also contribute to the mosaic of autoimmunity"
This is again consistent with the majority of the data. Infections agents have been demonstrated to play a role in AI disease development. The immune response created via seroconversion to a vaccine mimics the infectious process and thus could, theoretically, mimic the role of infectious agents in AI diseases. Several studies have demonstrated that infection play a far more substantial role in this which is why some vaccines actually reduce the risk of AI diseases by protecting the host from a full infectious response.
The authors conclude that "The overall relative risk for developing an autoimmune disease was 0.98, hence no direct statisticallysignificant difference between the groups was encountered".
Shoenfeld, Y., & Aron-Maor, A. (2000, Feb). Vaccination and autoimmunity-'vaccinosis': a dangerous liaison? J Autoimmun, 14(1), 1-10.
This basically states the same as the prior studies. The authors conclude that vaccines could catalyze an AI response however it is "quite rare" moreover "vaccination as improved the quality and length of life, with decreasing morbidity and mortality, especially in children."
Specializes in Nutritional Therapy, Functional Health.
There seems to be a lot of misguided anger in this thread. One thing that is striking to me is how both parties of the vaccination debate are so certain that the other side is completely wrong. Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Vaccines do save lives, but they are not without risks. With some individuals (and with some vaccines), the benefits may outweigh the risks, but in other cases, they simply do not. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis with thoughtful consideration for the individual patient, their risk of exposure, and prior medical history.
One thing that I am certain of is that I believe in the freedom of individuals and parents to make their own medical decisions and I also believe in transparency of information so that they can make informed decisions. Vaccines could also use a little cleaning up. Do we really need formaldehyde and propylene glycol in a vaccine that is injected into an infant (or an adult for that matter)? The vaccination schedule is another issue that needs to be re-examined. How is a newborn at risk for Hepatitis B exposure?
But beyond all of that, this issue could use a little perspective too. Infectious disease is serious and it can be deadly--and so is chronic disease. There are many ways to build a healthy immune system and protection against both acute and chronic disease. If vaccines are a part of an individual's protection against infectious disease, it should only be a component, not the only one. What about diet? Exposure to environmental toxins? Exercise? Sleep? There is a disturbing lack of attention to these other areas of health that have a huge impact on immunity. If people want to be angry because some individuals choose to exercise their right not to vaccinate, I hope that they are also getting angry at the Big Food industry that is feeding our children franken-food, chemicals, and pesticides.
There seems to be a lot of misguided anger in this thread. One thing that is striking to me is how both parties of the vaccination debate are so certain that the other side is completely wrong. Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Vaccines do save lives, but they are not without risks. With some individuals (and with some vaccines), the benefits may outweigh the risks, but in other cases, they simply do not. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis with thoughtful consideration for the individual patient, their risk of exposure, and prior medical history.
One thing that I am certain of is that I believe in the freedom of individuals and parents to make their own medical decisions and I also believe in transparency of information so that they can make informed decisions. Vaccines could also use a little cleaning up. Do we really need formaldehyde and propylene glycol in a vaccine that is injected into an infant (or an adult for that matter)? The vaccination schedule is another issue that needs to be re-examined. How is a newborn at risk for Hepatitis B exposure?
But beyond all of that, this issue could use a little perspective too. Infectious disease is serious and it can be deadly--and so is chronic disease. There are many ways to build a healthy immune system and protection against both acute and chronic disease. If vaccines are a part of an individual's protection against infectious disease, it should only be a component, not the only one. What about diet? Exposure to environmental toxins? Exercise? Sleep? There is a disturbing lack of attention to these other areas of health that have a huge impact on immunity. If people want to be angry because some individuals choose to exercise their right not to vaccinate, I hope that they are also getting angry at the Big Food industry that is feeding our children franken-food, chemicals, and pesticides.
If someone feeds their children unhealthy food, doesn't provide them with enough sleep, etc., that's sad and should be addressed, but it doesn't impact the population at large in the way that an unvaccinated individual can. The problem with people not vaccinating their children is that it has the potential to seriously, and possibly fatally, affect plenty of other people: children not old enough to be vaccinated, those who for medical reasons CANNOT be vaccinated, those who are unable to seroconvert, the immunocompromised, pregnant women. This is the source of a lot of the anger. Those choices parents are making, allegedly "their own medical decisions," in reality have the potential to create victims who didn't sign up to support their point of view. There are some diseases which are so contagious, eating a good diet and behaving in ways which will enhance the immune system are still no match. The statistics provided already re:measles where approx. 98% of exposed unvaccinated individuals will become infected is a good example.
If the only people to experience the consequences of the anti-vaxxers were their own families, perhaps one could agree that it is "their right," although the courts have repeatedly stepped in to protect children from the dangerous acts of their parents. But their decisions don't only affect their families, they affect their communities, at which point the public does have a say.
There seems to be a lot of misguided anger in this thread. One thing that is striking to me is how both parties of the vaccination debate are so certain that the other side is completely wrong. Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Vaccines do save lives, but they are not without risks. With some individuals (and with some vaccines), the benefits may outweigh the risks, but in other cases, they simply do not. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis with thoughtful consideration for the individual patient, their risk of exposure, and prior medical history.
One thing that I am certain of is that I believe in the freedom of individuals and parents to make their own medical decisions and I also believe in transparency of information so that they can make informed decisions. Vaccines could also use a little cleaning up. Do we really need formaldehyde and propylene glycol in a vaccine that is injected into an infant (or an adult for that matter)? The vaccination schedule is another issue that needs to be re-examined. How is a newborn at risk for Hepatitis B exposure?
But beyond all of that, this issue could use a little perspective too. Infectious disease is serious and it can be deadly--and so is chronic disease. There are many ways to build a healthy immune system and protection against both acute and chronic disease. If vaccines are a part of an individual's protection against infectious disease, it should only be a component, not the only one. What about diet? Exposure to environmental toxins? Exercise? Sleep? There is a disturbing lack of attention to these other areas of health that have a huge impact on immunity. If people want to be angry because some individuals choose to exercise their right not to vaccinate, I hope that they are also getting angry at the Big Food industry that is feeding our children franken-food, chemicals, and pesticides.
Woohoo! Another person with an open mind. I think there might be 5 of us now willing to consider the grey area between the anti and pro camps.
Sent from my iPhone -- blame all errors on spellcheck
The problem is that individuals, and worse, parents of children, are making decisions based on pseudoscience and hearsay.
They are willing and able to do this because they have never seen what most of these diseases did prior to them being nearly eradicated via vaccination.
Many people here have talked about the "harmless" German measles (rubella). They didn't directly witness what rubella did in 1964-5 when the disease killed over 2,000 infants and was responsible for 11,000 miscarriages prior to the vaccine. They only know about the past ten years when less than 10 cases have been reported.
Anyone want to imagine what a grave with 2,000 infants looks like? Or watch 11,000 moms grieve their late-term miscarriages?
Could someone who believes the purpose of vaccines is some nefarious population control scheme please, please explain how it's supposed to work? Millions of deaths have been prevented, the "population control" plan seems to be seriously flawed..
Beautiful beautiful rebuttal
I wasbstill sputtering and unable to craft such an eloquently stated piece
I do find the idea of the Central Bank being secretly in charge of healthcare policy rather (extremely) far-fetched. But lets pretend for a moment that this is true and that some secret cabal of billionaires control the Central Bank.
What is their objective? A person can only become a billionaire because there is an abundance of worker bees. Why would they wish to decimate the "worker bee" population? I don't know how billionaires feel and think about workers bees, but they certainly need them in order to maintain their status as the über-wealthy.
If the worker bee population was drastically reduced and the world was mostly inhabited by billionaires, the poor billionaires would be forced to ask their buddies at the various Central Banks to print them some money.. Inflation... And the formerly so powerful billionaire is reduced to a mere millionaire.. or worse...
Not only is the alleged vaccine "population control" plan a failure, but the purpose of one (if it actually had existed), is counter-productive.
(partial quote)
I don't think that you fully understand the definition of the scientific meaning of the word theory. When scientists use the word theory as in "theory of evolution", they are not expressing reservations of its' truth. (By the way, it is scientists who have presented the theory of evolution, not "the authorities").
In everyday usage "theory" will often be used to describe speculation or a hunch. That's not how the word is used by scientists. To a scientist a theory is a explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. No amount of validation will ever change a theory into law. Fossils and large amounts of other evidence provides clear, unambiguous and compelling indirect evidence that organisms have evolved through time.
Never mind.
I've actually have checked out the two sites you mention on several occasions, they have previously been referenced as "sources" by other vaccine opposers. I can't really say this in a polite way. I think the content is completely loopy. It's blatantly and painfully unscientific and I don't think that a healthcare professional searching for information about vaccines on these sites, can be referred to as "keeping an open mind". We should all know better than to buy into the outlandish "information" presented there. They are (ill-informed and often paranoid) opinions, not scientific research.
I don't as much laugh at Alex Jones' Infowars as I'm saddened by the fact that so many people seem to believe what's written there. I find it deeply troubling that some healthcare professionals are included in this group. If the percentage of children who receive for example the MMR immunization vaccine drops, we will see tragic consequences.
Do we really need formaldehyde and propylene glycol in a vaccine that is injected into an infant (or an adult for that matter)?
It depends on whether you'd like to prevent a fungal or bacterial contamination in the vial or not. I'd rather have the additives, personally. By the way, did you know that you have 10 times the quantity of formaldehyde in your bloodstream than what is found in a vaccine?
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Could someone who believes the purpose of vaccines is some nefarious population control scheme please, please explain how it's supposed to work? Millions of deaths have been prevented, the "population control" plan seems to be seriously flawed.
Obviously I don't believe that is the purpose of vaccines. I am not an idiot. However it has been the case that vaccines and health care have slowed the rate of population growth in some areas. When parents feel confident that most or all of their children will survive to adulthood they tend to have fewer of them.
Its similar to the way that one of the most effective ways of cutting the birth rate is to provide women and girls with education and opportunities.
I believe that is what Bill Gates was talking about.
There seems to be a lot of misguided anger in this thread. One thing that is striking to me is how both parties of the vaccination debate are so certain that the other side is completely wrong. Could it be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? Vaccines do save lives, but they are not without risks. With some individuals (and with some vaccines), the benefits may outweigh the risks, but in other cases, they simply do not. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis with thoughtful consideration for the individual patient, their risk of exposure, and prior medical history.
One thing that I am certain of is that I believe in the freedom of individuals and parents to make their own medical decisions and I also believe in transparency of information so that they can make informed decisions. Vaccines could also use a little cleaning up. Do we really need formaldehyde and propylene glycol in a vaccine that is injected into an infant (or an adult for that matter)? The vaccination schedule is another issue that needs to be re-examined. How is a newborn at risk for Hepatitis B exposure?
But beyond all of that, this issue could use a little perspective too. Infectious disease is serious and it can be deadly--and so is chronic disease. There are many ways to build a healthy immune system and protection against both acute and chronic disease. If vaccines are a part of an individual's protection against infectious disease, it should only be a component, not the only one. What about diet? Exposure to environmental toxins? Exercise? Sleep? There is a disturbing lack of attention to these other areas of health that have a huge impact on immunity. If people want to be angry because some individuals choose to exercise their right not to vaccinate, I hope that they are also getting angry at the Big Food industry that is feeding our children franken-food, chemicals, and pesticides.
You do realize that not only do our bodies produce waaaaay more formeldahyde on a daily basis than in a vax, but it is a normal and necessary part of the metabolic process?
And in case you name alumminum, you know that there is more in a dose of tums than a vaccine, right?
Please go back and review A&P and micro- it will never steer you wrong
Horseshoe, BSN, RN
5,879 Posts
Once again, macawake nails it. Well said.