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?
SCIENCE: do you really understand it? Correlation does not equal causation. The plural of anecdote is not data. Opinion does not equal fact.
It's like when people argue that evolution is "just a theory." So is gravity; go jump off a building and see where your belief gets you. What you believe is not necessarily backed up by, you know, the evidence.
Open your link, scroll down to this one: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.
Authors
Mitkus RJ1, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO.
Author information
Journal
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538-43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.124. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
Here's their conclusion:
"...we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
From the top article you cite but maybe didn't read:
"The issue of the risk of vaccination remains a philosophical one, since to date the advantages of this policy have not been refuted, while the risk for autoimmune disease has not been irrevocably proved."
"...the risk for autoimmune disease has not been irrevocably proved."
Which means what? It hasn't been proven to or not to cause autoimmune issues according to this study. Read it as stated, not how you want it to sound.
Open your link, scroll down to this one: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.
Authors
Mitkus RJ1, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO.
Author information
Journal
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538-43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.124. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
Here's their conclusion:
"...we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
Let's not gloss over the fact that it said this.....
"Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community."
Read them again, if that's what you have come away with.
Well, um....... You were very concerned with aluminum earlier in the thread....
Open your link, scroll down to this one: Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.
Authors
Mitkus RJ1, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO.
Author information
Journal
Vaccine. 2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538-43. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.124. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
Here's their conclusion:
"...we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
Many are blinded by science and choose only to look into the science that agrees with their opinion. That's what is going on here. Right here on this message board.
Andi - you are correct that one can find published studies that say many things, and some of them are flat out wrong. That is why "science is always evolving", no one on here has disagreed with that, in fact it is a basic tenant of science that as we learn and grow our body of knowledge, we continually ask ourselves what prior knowledge needs to be revisited, reexamined.
A good example of this is the recent changes in the standards for lipid management, where studies showed that using alternatives to statins did not produce improved outcomes. As such we as providers changed how we practice based on the new standards. That is because science is evolving, and we learned that some information and old data was insufficient or flat out wrong after doing many, many other studies.
In this case there are many, reputable studies indicating that vaccines pose no danger and produce massive public health protections, yet there are only a scant number of very poor studies that indicate that their might be some potential dangers with vaccines.
Recently, many anti-vaxers were all excited that "the CDC backed down" when in reality the CDC researcher only agreed that his study could have had a flaw in how it identified participants and he would evaluate if that would have any effect on the outcomes of one study, and if so he would modify the study to remove that risk. Although on anti-vax websites it was published as if he had been disproved or something in reality he had agreed to re-evaluate his method to see if there was a concern, nothing more.
As healthcare professionals, and consumers of this multitude of data, it is imperative that we understand how to interpret all of the data presented to us. Regardless of what you think of nurses, we have to be able to analyze the multitude of data points and determine where the science is pointing us to. Yes, there will be studies that might indicate something unusual, outliers, but the vast majority of studies will agree with each other. If we don't have this skill and do this carefully, well then we are not able to advocate for our patients and provide the best healthcare available to them, so yes this becomes a very touchy subject for many of us who care about our jobs and our patients.
I don't think vaccines are that great.....so what!!! I'm entitled to that.
If you want to vaccinate yourself or your family, do it! But don't dare force your view on others and make them feel like they have to do it too. This is an ethical dilemma.
The so what is the point here, vaccines are a public health policy that effect the entire population of the world. Yep, everyone. That is why every government in the world vaccinates to some level or another. If your decision only impacted you, I would agree with you 100%, it should be your choice, but it doesn't only impact you, it impacts many others. We can't let you harm others, that is why in many places vaccines are mandatory, and that is why I expect them to become mandatory in more and more of the world.
And one thing about nursing....Just because you are a nurse doesn't mean you know it all. You don't know all there is to know about the body or science. Floor nurses are glorified pill pushers. I am a nurse, and yeah, that's what I do: give drugs, hang IV bags, take people to the bathroom, look at labs, call the doctor, hang blood, change wound dressings, talk to families, chart, chart, chart etc. I didn't need college to learn how to do that. I get annoyed when nurses act arrogant like they are some nobel peace prize winning person, when really, we get down and dirty and are run ragged over a 12+ hour shift and barley have time to think about the science of it all. Let's be real here. I also get annoyed when nurses degrade other nurses because of differing beliefs. So to all the nurses like that, get over yourself. The sooner the better. Learn to be humble and have compassion (something lacking on this board for sure).
As for the "glorified pill pusher" comment, if this is how you feel your job should be performed I feel sorry for you, your employer, and most importantly your patients. As a nurse it is your job to evaluate each and every plan of care, including the medications and other therapies provided to the patient and verify that those treatments meet the current standards of care. That job requires you to research and know what the current standard of care is. Yes, nursing does involve many mundane daily tasks, but the core of a good nurse is their ability to "advocate for their patient" and that cannot be done without being able to understand what the current body of evidence says about the condition and the best way to treat it. So every good nurse, knows enough about science to understand why vaccines are a vital component of public health.
Finally, I realize you feel victimized by the negative comments you have received, however you might find that your visceral attacks on the vast majority of the readers of this board and their chosen profession will probably not gain you significant support from them. You have made many degrading comments yourself throughout this debate, and often refused to provide anything other than "no it's not" or "because I say so" as answers to others. It is that poor behavior and inability of you to respond with a common courtesy that has caused many of the negative remarks that have come your way.
pockunit, ADN, RN
614 Posts
SCIENCE: do you really understand it? Correlation does not equal causation. The plural of anecdote is not data. Opinion does not equal fact.
It's like when people argue that evolution is "just a theory." So is gravity; go jump off a building and see where your belief gets you. What you believe is not necessarily backed up by, you know, the evidence.