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?
Oh really, the 170+ articles with most of them being peer-reviewed articles are wrong too. I guess everything that doesn't support your opinion is wrong then.
Even in academics wikipedia, although not officially quoted, is often used as a preliminary search to further refine a literature review. It is also often a good source to find peer-reviewed articles in the reference section. Wikipedia as an open source editing website has much more validity than a completely biased closed anti-vaccine website.
Actually in college we were never aloud to use it as a source for the vary reason the data can be edited and it can be false. We were always told to look at .gov, .edu, or .org sites.
i would also say that some of the science that has been provided here is biased. That is why the procon site is beneficial because it presents both sides.
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.
Exactly! I'm glad you brought this up. Research for various drugs are funded by those who have something to gain. Money is what it's all about. Pharm reps come to doctors and wine and dine them. It's all part of the business. They bring in food for staff and throw in perks if doctors prescribe certain drugs to patients. Healthcare is a business. It's not so much about what is best for the patient all the time. As you said, all the corporations tie in. Mainstream media only reports certain things. The government is involved too. It's not a conspiracy as some would say, it's just what is really going on. MERCK is also known to provide perks to consumers. I believe they were offering a chance to win an iPad if college students got the HPV vaccine. A vaccine that has so many negative health affects and has caused many girls to become paralyzed, yet we don't hear the news reporting on that. My cousin had it and a couple days later a silvery aluminum substance was coming out of her skin and her skin had a blue tint. She had aluminum poisoning. But still it is being marketed, along with all those other drug commercials.
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
Even if if he did have surgery sooner, pancreatic cancer is a killer.
But timely treatment can extend life expectancy. I had a neighbor who lived for 15+ years after his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Why not use the timely prevention of devastating diseases and vaccinate children who don't have a medical contraindication?
Actually in college we were never aloud to use it as a source for the vary reason the data can be edited and it can be false. We were always told to look at .gov, .edu, or .org sites.
i would also say that some of the science that has been provided here is biased. That is why the procon site is beneficial because it presents both sides.
Science by definition isn't biased. That's the difference between real science and pseudoscience.
Even if if he did have surgery sooner, pancreatic cancer is a killer.
I assume you know that he had a neuroendocrine pancreatic cancer; I only mention it because it has a much lower mortality rate and the only form of treatment is local control, or surgery.
EDIT: added some numbers for you:
Exocrine Pancreatic Cancer, 5-year survival rate is 12-14% for stage I.
Andi you complained about pharmaceutical not being held liable for vaccines and then when they are held liable for their actions then you act like that now proves your point.
I throw out various websites with legitimate references, because people like you refuse to believe legitimate government sources such as the CDC.
Pharmaceutical companies often pay just for the translational research of medications. The basic research of discovering the receptor and the modulators for those receptors or in the case of vaccines the antigen(s) are usually done by basic science researchers most often funded through government grants.
pharmaceutical companies do still bring the occasional meal to providers, but most of the other perks that used to offer have been prohibited by law for several years now.
I have said this probably four times at least on this thread alone that vaccine testing is different than any other medication. Vaccines undergo larger phase 3 clinical trials and vaccines are constantly monitored and routinely researched in the post marketing/phase 4 through federal government money with little to no involvement by the pharmaceutical companies. There is no other medication that undergoes the scrutiny that all vaccines are routinely subjected to.
There isn't enough aluminum in vaccines to cause poisoning, skin color changes or anything else like you described. You get more aluminum in your daily meals than all the lifetime vaccines combined.
My cousin had it and a couple days later a silvery aluminum substance was coming out of her skin and her skin had a blue tint. She had aluminum poisoning. But still it is being marketed, along with all those other drug commercials.
Wow, was there lab evidence of high aluminum levels? Cause that doesn't so much sound like aluminum poisoning but rather like argyria or silver poisoning (I used to watch every episode of those medical mystery shows). Was she taking colloidal silver preparations?
Actually in college we were never aloud to use it as a source for the vary reason the data can be edited and it can be false. We were always told to look at .gov, .edu, or .org sites.
There's no harm in gleaning Wikipedia for some starter information. You just have to track down the sources Wikipedia uses & make sure you cite the original, not Wikipedia. Just as there's no harm using Google, just make sure the places it takes you has legitimate peer-reviewed information. I use google scholar all the time.
Sometimes it's search capabilities are more accurate than my university's medical library's search function. I just take the article name I find on google to my library to get the full article.
Actually in college we were never aloud to use it as a source for the vary reason the data can be edited and it can be false. We were always told to look at .gov, .edu, or .org sites.
i would also say that some of the science that has been provided here is biased. That is why the procon site is beneficial because it presents both sides.
.org sites are no different than .com, just didn't get there to claim the site name first so they went with the next best, .org.
Yes, wiki's can be edited and you have to be careful what you get from there. The original posting where you complained about a wiki reference used the information as a site with a good consolidation of the information in the other links, if you don't prefer to use it, don't, the rest of the links and the content of the posting are still valid.
Sites like procon have little to no valid content mixed in with extensive links to commentary, opinions, and other misleading information. What specific "science" that has been presented here has been biased? Please provide specific peer reviewed studies that show results indicating the results of the original studies were incorrect.
Holistic12, BSN
124 Posts
Actually in college we were never aloud to use it as a source for the vary reason the data can be edited and it can be false. We were always told to look at .gov, .edu, or .org sites.
i would also say that some of the science that has been provided here is biased. That is why the procon site is beneficial because it presents both sides.