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?
"These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking." Steven D. Schafersman, An introduction to Science, from: An Introduction to Science.
Once again the "data" presented is bogus and the "experts" have questionable credentials.
Despite a promising and prestigious education in psychiatric medicine, Kelly Brogan appears to have no qualifications in, published research on or clinical experience in the areas of infectious diseases, microbiology, immunology, epidemiology or in particular, vaccines and she seems to be using her status as a medical doctor to provide inaccurate and misleading information about vaccines – an attribution to false authority to expose a hidden truth somehow overlooked by the thousands of scientists and physicians who have spent their careers assessing vaccines and immunisation programmes.
Medscape: Medscape Access This is a 2013 systematic review article reprinted into the website Medscape from the journal of Rheumatology. It explains that there basically has been suspected rare cases of chronic autoimmune associated with vaccines, but the incidence of these diseases have never been shown to be statistically significant in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are considered higher levels of evidence than single studies or in the case of the one article you posted an opinion piece with selected review of the literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power Andi this is for you specifically since you seem to not understand how science works or statistical analysis specifically P values and CI (confidence intervals). Each study rates the statistical significance by, most often, showing doing a statistical analysis with significance level set by the authors. This level is most often 95% meaning that anything below .05 is statistically significant. That gives is 5 out of 100 chance the authors are wrong if there is .05 level, but often times in these extremely large studies P is often <.01 or even .001. this would mean that the authors in a single study had less than chance of being wrong with p=".001." it doesn stop there though since meta-analysis takes several studies and combine them together for statistical analysis you effectively start having winning lottery couple times row all these they were able to reproduce similar results.>
http://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=10824&bhcp=1 Video from the NIH showing Paul Offit giving a lecture on how to communicate vaccine science to the public. In here he explains that scientists understand and will tell you that science never "proves" anything. A scientist will give you statistical probabilities that show, as explained above, that their work has an extremely high probability of being correct or more specifically of rejecting the null hypothesis.
"Principles and Findings We are profoundly critical of the practice of vaccination. Vaccination is an unacceptable risk to every member of society, regardless of age. As medical professionals, Council members have observed first-hand the health of vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. We find the latter group to be robust, healthy and drug-free compared to the former group. We have reviewed published studies in support of vaccines and have found them wanting in both substance and science. We have brought out into the open hundreds of peer-reviewed, published medical articles that document the damage and the diseases caused by vaccines. We find the premise of herd immunity to be a faulty theory. We encourage intelligent debate about vaccination. We expect individuals to take responsibility for their health and the health of their children by investigating the problems due to vaccination prior to subjecting their children, or themselves, to this medical procedure. We believe that refusing vaccination is a personal right that should be legislatively guaranteed." - See more at: About | International Medical Council on Vaccination
It is convenient to find a website to support your personal opinion, but a few people's opinion still does not make all the research on vaccines wrong. It certainly wouldn't negate the thousands of vaccine researchers and immunologists that have wrote studies or the myriad of scientists that are vaccine experts that develop vaccine policy in all the countries around the world including the CDC, WHO, etc.
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.
If vaccination is supposed to cause one to become immune by introducing antibodies into the system, why is it so important that I get vaccinated? If vaccines did what they are supposed to do, then you should be able to have enough immunity built up to prevent the disease. If immunity were that simple, vaccines might just work. It appears they don't work as well as we're led to believe. Think of it in this way....I had the chicken pox when I was a kid. It was a mild illness that we now vaccinate against. I have full immunity because I had the disease and my body perfectly recognizes that antigen. The people who are vaccinated against it are still at risk because one vaccination doesn't protect for life. We don't know how long vaccines even work. No person is the same. So if you put me (had chicken pox-immune), a person vaccinated against chicken pox, and a person who currently has chicken pox in a room what would happen? I know I wouldn't get it, but the vaccinated person could. Vaccination is always a shot in the dark. A guess. A risk. Vaccine companies are protected by law from being sued for damages. So if a person is hurt or killed by a vaccine, you can't do anything about it. You can't make the company pay. You can't penalize them for what their product did. That is too much power given to a pharmaceutical company in my opinion.
Obesity is a public health problem. Maybe we should force McDondald's to close and take away all the soda and processed foods because it could potentially harm me and my family. TV commercials too because they affect the brain and tempt people to eat junk. There is talk that obesity might be contagious because people who have obese friends are more likely to be obese. What about public health policy for that? If we go there, where will it end. Arguments could be made for many health issues. It is also my body, and I should be able to decide what I want to put into it. I don't agree with the ingredients used. It's that simple. I don't want it. If we start to force vaccines, when will it end? Should we force women with high rates of familial breast cancer to undergo mastectomies? Should we force people who are at high risk for heart disease to take medication? I don't think it is ever a sound choice to begin to demand what others should put into their body. It is each person's right to choose what happens to their body. No one else should have a say.
Also, in regards to vaccination, it's something being done without knowing in advance if a person would even come into contact with that disease. They might or they might not, so it's putting things into the body without knowing the future.
Long term studies have not been done on vaccination, and there are probably many studies that need to be done to see if it has negative effects on humans. We assume allergies, Alzheimers, ADHD, bipolar, autoimmune diseases, etc. are just from environment or genes. If you think about the explosion of autoimmune diseases in the last few decades, it makes you wonder where it all came from. I would like to conduct some studies myself to find out if vaccines or our food supply has caused these health issues. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I err on the side of caution.
I do advocate for my patient's. If I am to give a vaccine, I make sure they understand fully the risks. I don't want the person to become ill for life or die because I gave it to them.
So why would she make it her mission to expose a hidden truth? Do you really think these people just sit around and think up grandiose stories to tell? People who speak out against vaccines are only trying to inform the public of the risks. The risks that are never really explained in detail in a doctor's office. They are trying to raise awareness on the issue. To present the side that people don't usually hear about. Some may know someone who was killed or injured by a vaccine.
Let's give her full credit....
"As an undergraduate at M.I.T, Dr. Brogan studied Cognitive Neuroscience and worked with Harvard undergraduates to create a public forum for the discussion of alternative medicine, directing conferences for the Hippocratic Society. She attended Cornell Medical School where she was awarded the Rudin Scholarship for Psychiatric Oncology and began her work in Reproductive Psychiatry, which she went on to train in during her residency at NYU/Bellevue. A strong interest in the interface of medicine and psychiatry led her to pursue a fellowship in Consultation Liaison/Psychosomatic Medicine at NYU/Bellevue/VA Hospital. Since that time, she remains on faculty and has focused her efforts on her private practice where she cares for patients with medical illnesses, as well as women at all stages of their reproductive life cycle. A passion for holistic living, environmental medicine, and nutrition are the bedrock of her functional medicine practice. She has published in the field of Psycho-Oncology, Women's Health, Perinatal Mental Health, Alternative Medicine, and Infectious Disease. She is Board Certified in Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine, as well as Board Certified in Integrative and Holistic Medicine." - See more at: A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine ~ by Kelly Brogan, MD | International Medical Council on Vaccination
Think of it in this way....I had the chicken pox when I was a kid. It was a mild illness that we now vaccinate against. I have full immunity because I had the disease and my body perfectly recognizes that antigen. The people who are vaccinated against it are still at risk because one vaccination doesn't protect for life. We don't know how long vaccines even work. No person is the same. So if you put me (had chicken pox-immune), a person vaccinated against chicken pox, and a person who currently has chicken pox in a room what would happen? I know I wouldn't get it, but the vaccinated person could.
Maybe, not so much. I also had chicken pox when I was a child, yet when I started working in health care at the age of 37 and the hospital that hired me did titers, I had zero immunity to varicella. I mean ZERO. The employee health staff were fairly shocked, they said they had never seen that before. I had to get immunized.
I also needed an MMR booster. It seems neither natural immunity nor vaccines are 100%. But that doesn't invalidate their value.
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.
I think you proof positive of your own statement. You are only looking for websites and articles that prove your point of view. When I select systematic reviews or meta-analysis studies those reports take in all the studies in the literature on that subject no subject is negated unless it fails to meet inclusion criteria that is expressly stated in the methods section of the article.
I can't believe how many of you radiate arrogance. You think you are better than me. Well, guess what, there is science that supports my side. So jump off your high horse, stop making false assumptions saying that I have no clue about the body and science, stop the insults because someone believes something different than you.
I don't think vaccines are that great.....so what!!! I'm entitled to that. No amount of put downs from you all will change that. I can't believe there are adults here as I feel like I'm being talked to by disrespectful teenagers. 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.
I can see that you will rave over vaccines until you know someone who has been injured or died because of it. You have no right to forcefully purge your opinions on others, or put others down because they feel differently.
Science is there for both sides. That's what the PROCON.org site shows. Yes, there are links to actual data, it's not just compiled from shady internet blogs. Whether you are for or against vaccines, science is on both sides of the issue. It's up for the individual to make an informed decision. Why don't any of you see that?
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 I said in a prior post, and this is really IMPORTANT to point out again, science is ALWAYS EVOLVING. Got that? It's always evolving and changing. What was once safe could eventually proven to be unsafe. 30 years ago butter was bad, now the statements are retracted and NEW SCIENCE shows it is beneficial and perfectly okay to eat. Same with saturated fat, and on and on. So for everyone so wrapped up in the science of everything....This is something to think about. THINK. Science is always changing and evolving. The science you believe to be true now, might not be twenty years from now. I don't know how I can pound that into the ground anymore. Hopefully, it's clear now.
1. Your evidence on vaccines is opinion. It maybe from an expert in the field that wrote a great paper with legitimate references from peer-reviewed sources, but it is still not systematic review of randomized control trials or an RCT itself. These individuals are actually looking at case reports (the lowest level of evidence) and making conjecture while expressing the need for more studies in most cases. It is from those type of articles and case reports that scientists develop randomized control trials, retrospective studies, and then systematic reviews. In almost every peer-reviewed scientific study that is published the author(s) will state in the discussion section that they think further studies should be done in X area to further the science. Scientists, in general, are always willing to consider new data, and that is why there is overwhelming abundance of data on vaccines showing that vaccines are extremely safe.
2. Are we arrogant or are you just ignorant on how to perform literature reviews and what science does and does not do? I think you have proven from your posts time and time again that you lack a fundamental understanding of literature reviews, what peer-reviewed scientific data is and how that applies to making public policy on vaccines. Quoting websites over and over again to try and prove your point is meaningless at some point people just stop clicking on those links since it is presumed it is just going to be another opinion piece.
3. You express a belief that there is enough evidence to not support vaccination, but you are unable to provide that proof in meaningful peer-reviewed scientific articles. The evidence against not vaccinating is overwhelming. It would be the equivalent of weighing a complete locomotive with all the cars fully loaded to a hot wheel car and trying to say they are equally in weight.
4. Science does change, but mass public vaccination has been around since approximately 1500 in China and approximately 1800 in Europe. We have been studying the effects of vaccines since 1798. I don't there has ever been a longer longitudinal study than that. We continue to study the effects of vaccine routinely in most western countries. Vaccines are the only medication that routinely, at least annually in U.S., undergoes post-marketing/Phase IV testing. In all that time we have documented the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and vaccines have been the only method so far that has been shown to completely eliminate a disease. Timelines — History of Vaccines
5. Everyone can have different beliefs, but when you are a nurse in U.S. you are taught about public health and tested on public health. You, as a nurse, are expected to promote evidence based practice and follow government guidelines on public health including vaccinations, if you cannot do that then IMHO you shouldn't be a nurse.
6. The only thing is clear is that you cannot provide sufficient evidence to support a position on not being vaccinated.
zmansc, ASN, RN
867 Posts
"These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking." Steven D. Schafersman, An introduction to Science, from: An Introduction to Science.