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?
There isn't enough aluminum in any vaccine or all the vaccines over a lifetime to give someone aluminum toxicity. Aluminum is the most common metal on earth and the third most common element overall. You get exposed to more aluminum in your daily life than all the vaccines you will ever get over a lifetime.
Please go back and review A&P and micro- it will never steer you wrong
Seriously? Are you really basing your discussion on the kindergarten science classes that we took to become nurses?
It is disconcerting to hear condescending remarks from someone with such a minute science background.
I am current on all of my vaccines/immunizations including the influenza vaccine that is less efficacious than praying.
Vaccines have been shown to cause encephalitis.
The reason why we get a second MMR is because of the 1989 outbreak of measles among those who WERE vaccinated. Therefore, there is proof, not just evidence, that vaccines are not quite as effective as some "scientists" have led us to believe.
Be a compassionate caregiver, not a pompous bourgeois.
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.
It would be interesting if the UK did a side by side with the US, though I don't know which would be the control . . . but it would be interesting to know if the shingles incidence were different between UK and US. The WebMD article's research wasn't very good research, that I'll agree with.
Seriously? Are you really basing your discussion on the kindergarten science classes that we took to become nurses?
It is disconcerting to hear condescending remarks from someone with such a minute science background.
I am current on all of my vaccines/immunizations including the influenza vaccine that is less efficacious than praying.
Vaccines have been shown to cause encephalitis.
The reason why we get a second MMR is because of the 1989 outbreak of measles among those who WERE vaccinated. Therefore, there is proof, not just evidence, that vaccines are not quite as effective as some "scientists" have led us to believe.
Be a compassionate caregiver, not a pompous bourgeois.
Seriously? Are you really going off the rails over this comment?
It is disconcerting to hear such ridiculous comments over someone who is stating "there is proof just not evidence that immunizations are not effective.."
What in the name of all that is holy is proof that is not evidence?
Compassionate caregiver? Who on this thread is my patient?
Bourgeois??? Now you're just screwing with me, right? You do understand this word refers to materialism and class status, and has zero bearing on a conversation about vaccines
In all seriousness, are you ESL? I'm sincerely asking because your use of some words is baffling
This is a little like talking to the dwarf in the red room in Twin Peaks.
Finally, When people on here are throwing out such ridiculous notions like "antibiotics introduce antibodies into your system" You're darn right some very elementary review of Micro and A&P are called for
Andi, serious question, have you ever taken a research methods class? You need to take the time and evaluate the studies you are weighing against each other. You cannot simply take things at face value.
For example, in the link you provided, the blog writer compares opposing papers on the topic of autism in the section titled "#1". The first studies she lists are major peer-reviewed retrospective cohort studies using actual, not theoretical data. The blogger then rebuts those major studies with small theoretical papers about potential harms of vaccines.
First and foremost, the latter provider a potential theoretical LINK between vaccines and the conditions they describe; they do not provide any evidence of causation. Second, that correlation/link, when examined using accepted research methods (ie a retrospective cohort study) is not demonstrated to be significant. Correlation does not imply causation. This is a pillar of research. Several posters here have posted other strong correlations that most people with common sense would not assume implied causation: 100% of people who consume water die, 100% of children with autism drank water prior to diagnosis, etc.
Again I will quote directly from the blog you linked:
"The list literally goes on and on, study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism. So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous."
Note two things here:
1. There are studies that "claim" there" is a "possible link". Even the blogger understand there is no causation implied.
2. The fallacy that there is no "absolute"; what this blog neglects to discuss is that there is consequence to inaction. The complication of several of these preventable diseases is neurologic damage. Simply by not vaccinating one does not simply avoid risk. There is a significant risk to inaction.
Don't skim because you missed all the rest. It actually contains links to studies that show vaccines do not cause autism and studies that show it does cause autism.
Again, I don't think you understand the difference between a "possible link" and "causation".
I saw it was lengthy, so skimmed this article......and found the word "autism" cropping up in nearly every paragraph. Which tells me that if these are the top reasons people are not vaccinating, it's even MORE imperative that medical professionals DO THEIR JOBS and inform them that there IS NO LINK.
Repeating a discredited, obsolete "causation" over and over does not make it truthful....only repetitive.
Seriously? Are you really basing your discussion on the kindergarten science classes that we took to become nurses?
When someone doesn't understand a basic physiologic function, shouldn't they be directed back to that basic A&P class on which their understanding of the topic should have arisen from?
It is disconcerting to hear condescending remarks from someone with such a minute science background.
Is it also condescending to call undergraduate level core science classes "kindergarten science" then insult their education?
I am current on all of my vaccines/immunizations including the influenza vaccine that is less efficacious than praying.
Citation please.
Vaccines have been shown to cause encephalitis.
Citation please demonstrating that the risk of encephalitis post-vaccination is higher than the risk of encephalitis from infection with that same disease.
The reason why we get a second MMR is because of the 1989 outbreak of measles among those who WERE vaccinated. Therefore, there is proof, not just evidence, that vaccines are not quite as effective as some "scientists" have led us to believe.
I don't think anyone has stated that vaccines are 100% efficacious, in fact, that is why having a vaccination rate higher than the critical immunization threshold is so vital for preventing a pandemic.
I will leave the "compassion" argument to the poster that stated that it wouldn't bother them if their child passed a preventable disease to another child resulting in their death.
The science you and others have provided is. You are biased and only present science that supports your ideas. Again, that's why the procon site is beneficial. Yet, you say it's not good enough. Do I need to go to that site and click the footnotes that lead to the studies and post them here? It seems instead of arguing vaccines, you would rather argue about what science is or isn't, and refuse to look at anything that might go against what you believe.
It's almost like arguing religion.
Andi, the phrases of yours I bolded demonstrate the crux of the problem you're having with the rest of the participants in this thread: SCIENCE is not biased. It is factual. That is what MAKES IT science.
Anything else, that does support anyone's personal or professional agenda, is NOT SCIENCE. It's opinion and rhetoric, and unworthy of academic discussion.
You consistently state that people here are using "biased science"; I'm offering that you're suggesting an oxymoron.
Also, the only thing about your analogy regarding religion that works on this topic is that some people will point to certain things as proven fact (when they are NOT proven fact). And that is EXACTLY what you are doing here: disputing proven facts and inserting invalid diatribe in their place.
Last time I checked, the Bible was not a scientific tome. Stating that arguing about this topic is the same as arguing about religion is a gross mistake.
Meanwhile, evidence of the benefits of vaccination has been shared in this thread, thus proving the pro-van position actually isn't "just because". You have yet to show science behind your position, which makes your position seem "just because". Irony.
When all else fails, call 'em commies. That'll drive your message home real well!
As there is a Godwin's law, when someone brings Hitler into a discussion, is there a similar law, such as Stalin's law when someone mentions communism?
Andi, serious question, have you ever taken a research methods class? You need to take the time and evaluate the studies you are weighing against each other. You cannot simply take things at face value.
For example, in the link you provided, the blog writer compares opposing papers on the topic of autism in the section titled "#1". The first studies she lists are major peer-reviewed retrospective cohort studies using actual, not theoretical data. The blogger then rebuts those major studies with small theoretical papers about potential harms of vaccines.
First and foremost, the latter provider a potential theoretical LINK between vaccines and the conditions they describe; they do not provide any evidence of causation. Second, that correlation/link, when examined using accepted research methods (ie a retrospective cohort study) is not demonstrated to be significant. Correlation does not imply causation. This is a pillar of research. Several posters here have posted other strong correlations that most people with common sense would not assume implied causation: 100% of people who consume water die, 100% of children with autism drank water prior to diagnosis, etc.
Again I will quote directly from the blog you linked:
"The list literally goes on and on, study after study in peer-reviewed scientific journals claim a possible link between vaccines/vaccine ingredients and autism. So, this is one reason why parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. To say there is absolutely no way a vaccine can be a contributing factor in causing autism is completely false and dangerous."
Note two things here:
1. There are studies that "claim" there" is a "possible link". Even the blogger understand there is no causation implied.
2. The fallacy that there is no "absolute"; what this blog neglects to discuss is that there is consequence to inaction. The complication of several of these preventable diseases is neurologic damage. Simply by not vaccinating one does not simply avoid risk. There is a significant risk to inaction.
Again, I don't think you understand the difference between a "possible link" and "causation".
If you focused on just the autism part, you missed a lot of other info in the article. It gave more reasons. It offered a lot. I think it explained the reasons parents hesitate or avoid vaccines. That's the point of the article. To show people like you, people who think vaccines are next to God, that look, vaccines aren't all you think they're cracked up to be.
Again, you think you know everything. Unfortunately, you do not. Until you take a humble approach to learning, you will not gain wisdom.
What a convenient anecdote to derail the conversation.
No way for any of us to prove or disprove this short of seeing her medical records, which obviously will not happen
I didn't derail the conversation. I simply stated how vaccines can hurt people, and it happens more than you know. Many go unreported. You're right, you can't prove or disprove it. I am an honest person though. If I wanted to make up a vaccine horror story, i could think of way worse. My cousin was lucky.
wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA
5,128 Posts
There isn't enough aluminum in any vaccine or all the vaccines over a lifetime to give someone aluminum toxicity. Aluminum is the most common metal on earth and the third most common element overall. You get exposed to more aluminum in your daily life than all the vaccines you will ever get over a lifetime.