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.
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.
Did you actually READ the article?? It did NOT say that a person will get shingles from the vaccine. It explains the rationale behind why the vaccine has resulted in a huge increase in shingles in the GENERAL POPULATION (i.e. anyone born before 1995 who WAS NOT VACCINATED). And until EVERYONE has received the vaccine, that will continue to happen - once the general population is vaccinated, then shingles will be greatly reduced. It is NOT "BULL HONKEY". The article is making a case for WHY THE VACCINE WILL HELP PREVENT SHINGLES IN THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE VACCINE.
Read the frickin' article.
Christ, it's like any article that doesn't tow the "rah rah vaccines" partyline, and even SUGGESTS that vaccines may have some untoward side effects is completely dismissed by you guys.
And THAT is why I didn't want to engage in this debate.
It does not increase the risk in shingles for people who have received the vaccine. Lack of wild varicella HAS increased shingles in the general population who were not vaccinated against varicella.
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)
I read this article and then the opposing from from WebMD. Perhaps what has happened in UK is that 'cause' (varicella vaccine, therefore increased shingles) is being attributed before the research is 'in'. It's easy to get cause and correlation mixed up, we all do it all the time and never notice it until it matters.
It seems a person has to spend tons of time doing their own personal research into . . . everything! I took a research class as part of my BSN, but I don't remember much and later on had to re-educate myself (an ongoing process) about how to discern valid research, what statistics are and what they actually mean, and so forth. I can understand the POV the UK article talks about, it makes sense, but it might be making an assumption about 'cause' that isn't true. Their plan to wait and see what happens in the US is one way to find out, and other way is the WebMD article, which states there is no causation. What to believe? And since 'belief' is not relevant to what IS, it's no wonder most regular folks like us get confused, even suspicious.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
The study in the WebMD article is one study that "suggests" that is not related. It has not been duplicated, as far as I know.
What the researchers in the study say is "We know that periodic exposure to varicella helps prevent shingles from occurring, and adults are not getting that boost in immunity anymore now that all the kids are getting vaccinated. We didn't find a statistically significant change, but we don't really know why this is happening."
We KNOW that shingles is prevented by periodic exposure to wild chicken pox. We KNOW that wild chicken pox is pretty much gone nowadays because of the varicella vaccine. We KNOW there has been a huge increase in shingles cases in the past 20 years, right around the time when widespread varicella vaccination came into being.
Yes, I know this one study did not find it as a causative factor. But with all the facts that we know, it's going to take more than ONE study to convince a lot of people.
It does not increase the risk in shingles for people who have received the vaccine. Lack of wild varicella HAS increased shingles in the general population who were not vaccinated against varicella.
There has been an unknown increase in shingles that has not been related to varicella vaccine rates. There has been no indication that the varicella vaccine has increased the rate of shingles in vaccinated or unvaccinated people.
The article that you provided was confusing to me. The author states that the more younger people that get the varicella vaccine the more it puts middle-aged and older people at risk of getting chickenpox..? How does that make sense? It has to be a Great Britain logic on vaccines that I am missing. Chickenpox is a highly contagious disease that is primarily spread by young children, if you eliminate the majority of the vectors (young children) then you effectively eliminate the majority of the chickenpox outbreaks. This is what we have seen so far in the U.S.
The author in the British article is also only giving commentary on what is expected based on an unknown mathematical model. The study that was discussed on WebMD was an actual research study looking at incidence rates. In other words one is just a discussion article based on a simulation/mathematical model and the other one is actually based on real non-simulated numbers.
I am glad you posted the article. I hadn't heard of a possible link between shingles and chickenpox vaccine before.
I'm just going to reiterate that you are entitled (Andi- you used this term, and I think it's a good word for most antivaxers as they tend to use it liberally when exerting their right to an option) to believe whatever research your little heart desires. HOWEVER, you're NOT entitled to that opinion garnering the same respect that the opinions and recommendations of public health experts does. It really is that simple. Believe what you want. At this point, Jesus descending from the heavens telling you to vaccinate your babies wouldn't be enough to convince you. That is okay. Really, it is. You ARE entitled to that.
You're not entitled to risk the health of others, however. So I'll say this again, if you decide to take an "alternative" stand and put your own beliefs before the "greater good" of the community, you run the risk of having to be isolated from that community. With every choice there is consequences. If you choose to believe vaccines are worse than the disease, you must live with the consequence of possible quarantine and isolation, not only to protect your children, but to protect everyone else.
I will promise 100% respect of your opinion, if you promise me that you will keep your kids away from infants and the elderly.
Here is the actual article that WebMD was referring to. I really hate when web sources do not use appropriate citations. It makes it difficult to find the actual articles they are referring to.
"Ann Intern Med. 2013 Dec 3;159(11):739-45. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-11-201312030-00006.
[h=1]Examination of links between herpes zoster incidence and childhood varicella vaccination.[/h]Hales CM, Harpaz R, Joesoef MR, Bialek SR.
[h=3]Abstract[/h][h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h]Introduction of a universal varicella vaccine program for U.S. children in 1996 sparked concern that less-frequent exposure tovaricella would decrease external boosting of immunity to varicella zoster virus and thereby increase incidence of herpes zoster (HZ).
[h=4]OBJECTIVE:[/h]To determine whether the varicella vaccination program has influenced trends in HZ incidence in the U.S. population older than 65 years.
[h=4]DESIGN:[/h]Retrospective study of Medicare claims.
[h=4]SETTING:[/h]Medicare, 1992 through 2010.
[h=4]PARTICIPANTS:[/h]2 848 765 beneficiaries older than 65 years.
[h=4]MEASUREMENTS:[/h]Annual HZ incidence from 1992 through 2010; rate ratios (RRs) for HZ incidence by age, sex, and race or ethnicity; and state-level varicella vaccination coverage.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h]281 317 incident cases of HZ occurred. Age- and sex-standardized HZ incidence increased 39% from 10.0 per 1000 person-years in 1992 to 13.9 per 1000 person-years in 2010 with no evidence of a statistically significant change in the rate of increase after introduction of the varicellavaccination program. Before introduction of this program, HZ incidence was higher in women (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.19 to 1.24]) than men and was lower in black persons (RR, 0.51 [CI, 0.48 to 0.53]) and Hispanic persons (RR, 0.76 [CI, 0.72 to 0.81]) than white persons. In a model adjusted for sex, age, and calendar year from 1997 to 2010, HZ incidence did not vary by state varicella vaccination coverage (RR, 0.9998 [CI, 0.9993 to 1.0003]).
[h=4]LIMITATION:[/h]Uncertain level and consistency of health-seeking behavior and access and uncertain accuracy of disease coding.
[h=4]CONCLUSION:[/h]Age-specific HZ incidence increased in the U.S. population older than 65 years even before implementation of the childhood varicellavaccination program. Introduction and widespread use of the vaccine did not seem to affect this increase. This information is reassuring for countries considering universal varicella vaccination."
"With the widespread vaccination of childrenthrough national varicella immunization programmes,there is substantial interest in whether environmentalexposure may boost the immune response in previouslyinfected adults to prevent future episodes ofzoster. Exposure of adults to VZV through contactwith infectious children has been proposed [8]although a recent review suggested inconsistencies inthe evidence [31]. Data from our study did not appearto support this immune boosting theory. We found nodifference in zoster risk in those who had children(although this was a crude measure of exposure) andzoster risks were consistently higher for women thanmen. In a cohort of this age, it is likely womenwould have greater exposure to young children andhence VZV than men."
[h=3]"Abstract[/h]Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) causes chickenpox and may subsequently reactivate to cause herpes zoster later in life. The exogenous boosting hypothesis states that re-exposure to circulating VZV can inhibit VZV reactivation and consequently also herpes zoster in VZV-immune individuals. Using this hypothesis, mathematical models predicted widespread chickenpox vaccination to increase herpes zoster incidence over more than 30 years. Some countries have postponed universal chickenpox vaccination, at least partially based on this prediction. After a systematic search and selection procedure, we analyzed different types of exogenous boosting studies. We graded 13 observational studies on herpes zoster incidence after widespread chickenpox vaccination, 4 longitudinal studies on VZV immunity after re-exposure, 9 epidemiological risk factor studies, 7 mathematical modeling studies as well as 7 other studies. We conclude that exogenous boosting exists, although not for all persons, nor in all situations. Its magnitude is yet to be determined adequately in any study field."
The Telegraph doesn't appear to have an "about" section, but I assume they are drinking a conservative kool aid of some sort.
You didn't actually read the link, did you? The release of the emails from East Anglia University is a documented fact, and also documented is that those emails show climate "scientists" conspiring to cook the books. They systematically misused data, or purposely left it out, in order to make their studies say what they wanted them to say. (Dr. Wakefield, anyone?)
The science of vaccines has been settled by generations of reliable, high quality, peer-reviewed research and meta-analysis.
The "science" of climate change (which they had to start calling it after a generation of no warming made "global warming" ridiculous and untenable) does not compare and is frankly too tainted with anti-capitalist politics to be taken seriously.
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.
I don't wish anything bad for you, but I am frightened you are endangering your patients if you are "educating" your patients using the non-scientific antivaxxer tripe you've been spewing here. If you are, then I sincerely hope another nurse or doctor overhears or a patient reports it so that you can be dealt with by your superiors and/or board of nursing.
It really frightens me that someone with your anti-western medicine, anti-vaccination, nonscientific views is a nurse. I remain confused as to why you even want to be a nurse since you beliefs go against much of nursing. If you oppose the science, treatment and philosophy that embodies nursing, what is left in nursing for you? Money? Job security?
You're not entitled to risk the health of others, however. So I'll say this again, if you decide to take an "alternative" stand and put your own beliefs before the "greater good" of the community, you run the risk of having to be isolated from that community. With every choice there is consequences. If you choose to believe vaccines are worse than the disease, you must live with the consequence of possible quarantine and isolation, not only to protect your children, but to protect everyone else.
I will promise 100% respect of your opinion, if you promise me that you will keep your kids away from infants and the elderly.
I was taught on the first day of nursing school to identify my biases and come back the next day prepared to discuss them. We were told to never let that interfere with what we do as nurses.
This reminds me also of identifying our faith or lack thereof. You cannot proselytize as a nurse - I think that includes the entire "alternative medicine" universe.
You simply must leave your biases at home when you become a nurse and rely on medical science to care for patients.
The only folks I truly see who are doing the alternative medicine stuff are some chiropractors who hire "naturalists". I regret to say I have friends and family who see these people and take all kinds of odd concoctions.
klone, MSN, RN
14,857 Posts
Did you actually READ the article?? It did NOT say that a person will get shingles from the vaccine. It explains the rationale behind why the vaccine has resulted in a huge increase in shingles in the GENERAL POPULATION (i.e. anyone born before 1995 who WAS NOT VACCINATED). And until EVERYONE has received the vaccine, that will continue to happen - once the general population is vaccinated, then shingles will be greatly reduced. It is NOT "BULL HONKEY". The article is making a case for WHY THE VACCINE WILL HELP PREVENT SHINGLES IN THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE VACCINE.
Read the frickin' article.
Christ, it's like any article that doesn't tow the "rah rah vaccines" partyline, and even SUGGESTS that vaccines may have some untoward side effects is completely dismissed by you guys.
And THAT is why I didn't want to engage in this debate.