Anti-vax nurses? Are you serious?

Published

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.

This article explains why/how the widespread use of the varicella vaccine increases the incidence of shingles in the general population, and will continue to do so until the entire population has received the vaccine (meaning, those born before 1995-2000 or thereabouts all die out)

Chickenpox, chickenpox vaccination, and shingles

Specializes in Anesthesia.
I am not ignorant of the scientific process, I have a previous science-based bachelor degree and I was actively involved in research. I also have taken several statistics courses. You must not have read the link I posted, it is an article on a lawsuit claiming that MERCK lied about the effectiveness of its MMR vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies only care about their bottom lines, not our health, not the "greater good". This is why they lied. You should not be ignorant of the fact that billion dollar corporations could lie to the American public to make billions of dollars. What good are statistics if the numbers are made up? And why was this not on the mainstream news? Because corporations that sell us products own the news stations ie NBC- General Electric- UNIVERSAL, all one corporation.

I agree that pharmaceutical companies are only there for their bottom line, but they also make very little money from older vaccines compared to their overall revenue. What for profit business is not interested in the bottom line.

Vaccines are different in the fact that vaccines are the only medication that constantly undergo post-marketing/phase IV testing, which in almost all cases pharmaceutical companies do not provide the funding for or sponsor.

Mumps | Cases and Outbreaks | CDC We have had a 99%+decrease in Mumps cases in the U.S. since the vaccine for mumps started here. The Merck mumps vaccine may not be 95% effective, but it still comes pretty close.

The Telegraph doesn't appear to have an "about" section, but I assume they are drinking a conservative kool aid of some sort.

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 commercial tests lack the technology to detect certain levels of antibody titers. This does not mean you aren't immune. It SHOULD all depend on CDC guidance. For example, CDC says that 2 documented doses of MMR are sufficient, and subsequent lab tests are unnecessary to confirm immunity.

This article explains why/how the widespread use of the varicella vaccine increases the incidence of shingles in the general population, and will continue to do so until the entire population has received the vaccine (meaning, those born before 1995-2000 or thereabouts all die out)

Chickenpox, chickenpox vaccination, and shingles

That's actually bull honkey. 1 in 3 people with a history of chicken pox will get shingles in their lifetime. Everybody got varicella before the vaccine. You are MUCH less likely to get shingles from vaccination than you are from wild varicella. I mean that article is BULL HONKEY.

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Specializes in critical care.
"...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.

And now you're struggling with grammar. It is saying that there has been no actual proof.

Specializes in critical care.
Chickenpox Vaccine Not Responsible for Rise in Shingles, Study Says – WebMD The chickenpox vaccine does not increase the risk of shingles.

I understand this is anecdotal, but a very dear friend of mine has a daughter almost exactly the same age as mine. Three years after her varicella vaccine, she had her first shingles outbreak. Breaks my heart to see such a precious little girl go through that. Anyway, when I have brain power and energy and I am not on my lunch break, I'll see if I can dig up the studies I found indicating that it's uncommon, but possible to get shingles from the vaccine.

(Even knowing that, I'd still go grab the varicella vaccine and give it to all the babies if I could.)

Specializes in Tele, OB, public health.
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 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.

Wow. If that is your take on nursing, you are doing it wrong.

And I can say with absolute certainity, you are not a very effective nurse.

I understand this is anecdotal, but a very dear friend of mine has a daughter almost exactly the same age as mine. Three years after her varicella vaccine, she had her first shingles outbreak. Breaks my heart to see such a precious little girl go through that. Anyway, when I have brain power and energy and I am not on my lunch break, I'll see if I can dig up the studies I found indicating that it's uncommon, but possible to get shingles from the vaccine.

(Even knowing that, I'd still go grab the varicella vaccine and give it to all the babies if I could.)

The way that is written implies that the vaccine gave the child shingles, not that the child developed shingles in spite of being vaccinated for varicella rather than being infected with varicella. They are not exactly the same thing.

I ended up doing very selective/delayed vaccines for the first year of her life, but I was not confident that this was the right decision, and I lost much sleep laying in bed pondering this dilemma. Do vaccines save lives? I believe so. Do they also TAKE lives? Absolutely. Do they damage the immune and nervous systems? Yes. Is there a no-fault, government-run court system designed specifically to hear vaccine death/injury cases that will quietly pay you for the death/injury of your vaccine damaged child? YES!

An older post from days ago (just catching up here) and this paragraph caught my eye. I can see how Aubrienora got hornswaggled by a distortion of the facts by emotionalism and preconceived notions. I know I don't much, and most people don't sit down and weigh rhetoric with formal logic. But we really ought to. In matters of life and death, or epidemics versus eradication of a disease, logic is necessary. Granted it's not near so seductive as fear mongering and emotionalism. And it is also extremely sneaky, to the point the person uttering such illogic is innocently unaware of it.

Simply this: Do vaccines save lives? I believe so. Do they also TAKE lives? Absolutely.

The truth-based "vaccine saves lives" is given a conditional, and empirically wrong "I believe so" while the "vaccines take lives" is given an absolute "absolutely". Neither are WRONG, word for word. But the subtext is allll wrong. The choices of words betray a clear agenda, an emotional pressure. If a person is trying to determine what the heck is going on in this world, and isn't aware of their vulnerability bias toward whatever is safest and most sure (which NOTHING is), they'll be diverted from the facts, which don't inspire that kind of emotional reaction.

If this is what you BELIEVE, Aubrienora, that is your perfect right. But this is not about belief, because what you or I believe about anything is irrelevant to the facts of the matter, which are abundant when it comes to vaccinations. I can believe the US government murdered 3000 people on 9/11 with the First Amendment protecting my beliefs and statements . But what I believe means nothing about what actually happened. My belief is irrelevant. I don't have to know EVERY SINGLE fact of the matter to 'believe'. Beliefs are different things than objective facts. They ought not to have special significance just because they are beliefs. Beliefs are not in the same class as objective fact. I often hear or read that science is 'just another belief system' and I want to pull out all my hair at the sheer ridiculousness of that statement. It's like accusing atheists of having their own religion. It boggles the mind.

Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
+ Join the Discussion