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?
Wow, just wow. I started to respond to various points of your rant, but there were just so many errors, fallacies, half-truths and such in your text I couldn't possibly get to them all and still be on the same calendar day. Please tell me you aren't actually a licensed healthcare provider.
I'm one of the few folks I know who actually read the MMR/autism study YEARS AGO before it was banned because it did not jive with healthcare propaganda.
I've actually read it too.
The article wasn't retracted because as you put it "did not jive with healthcare propaganda".
It was retracted because it contained methodological and ethical flaws, or in layman terms; it was rubbish research.
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?
In response to the original question above, nurses do not deny science as there is science that supports both sides of the vaccine debate. You can't say that, because they deny YOUR science, that they are wrong. Your science, meaning the science you choose to look at and agree with. There are plenty of issues with vaccines that have been brought up in various scientific data. There are "peer reviewed" studies out there that bring up issues with vaccines. I wouldn't lose respect or judge them for their views. They obviously came upon the decision not to vaccinate by being open minded and objectively looking at data. Who are you to judge?
The reasons parents choose not to vaccinate are many: scientific flaws, scientific fraud, questionable ingredients, possible autoimmune issues, asthma, ADHD, safety is not assured, etc. After all, vaccination is a RISK. Injuries often go unreported, so we aren't quite sure the exact numbers of adverse reactions or injuries. Who is anyone to tell anyone else that they should receive a vaccine even though it could kill their child. It's not your choice, it's not my choice, it is the parents choice. It's up to the parent to decide if they want to RISK giving their child a vaccine. It's just that simple.
Some parents who chose not to vaccinate do so because they feel that VACCINES CAUSE disease. Why would they inject their children with a vaccine that could lead to autoimmune disorders or other health issues in the future? Also, many of the diseases we vaccinate against are mild. Nutrition plays a major role in our health. For those who eat well, the chance at getting many of these diseases are slim.
I feel it's a problem when a young mother takes her baby for a checkup and is given a single page of information on the vaccines her child is to receive. This bit of information is most likely the only information this mother knows about the vaccine, assuming she hasn't done any research and reading on her own. She has no idea about the ingredients, the chance of adverse reaction, the possible risks, and all the things that some of us know goes on behind the scenes. She is basically handed a paper to read at her convenience and the baby gets the shots. I don't feel that is properly informing the mother.
I provided an article that answers your question as to why parents choose not to vaccinate. I think it sums it up pretty well. I don't tend to focus on the autism side. I'm more on the side of ingredients, questionable data, bigPharm, and possible health issues it causes down the road.
Off topic but along the same lines:
If we look around, we can see that pharmaceutical companies have invaded our lives. They market drugs to us via TV commercials, magazine ads, and billboards. They tell us, "Just ask your doctor." They want us to be drug dependent. That's how they make money. There is a pill for everything. Many people don't realize that they could be healthy and drug free if they only took better care of their bodies by eating right and being more conscious about the products they use or consume. I feel it's imperative that we get back to nature and avoid as many toxins as possible. We can affect how our genes are expressed. We could have a genetic predisposition to something, but we also have the power to affect whether or not those genes are expressed and turned on.
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
I said that there was PROOF not just evidence that vaccines are not quite as effective as scientists (term used quite loosely) would have us to believe. You transposed my words and changed the entire meaning of my sentence.
Bourgeois is what you are and the term belongs in this conversation. Your tone is condescending and lies somewhere in the petite bourgeoisie realm. You have a little bit of education that has made your head swell to the point where you think that your opinion of the scientific evidence is all that matters.
A true scientist will tell you that there are certain laws that will always stand the test of time.
Everything else is just hypothesis, theory, and a whole lot of trial-and-error. I imagine that if we lived during the Pre-Pasteur period that you would be arguing for the side of spontaneous generation.
ESL? Now you are insulting the highly intelligent people who are able to learn a language besides their own. Such a Bourgeoisie attitude toward the ESL group which is comprised mainly of the proletariat.
Should I shame each and every one of you who doesn't take care of yourself, spreading disease and wasting my tax dollars with your overweight, junk-food eating bodies? I'm sorry but you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
-mother of a celiac, FTT child who attends private school
Thank you for that! Your entire post was spot on. It's nice to see another like mind on here!
Wow, just wow. I started to respond to various points of your rant, but there were just so many errors, fallacies, half-truths and such in your text I couldn't possibly get to them all and still be on the same calendar day. Please tell me you aren't actually a licensed ealthcare provider.
Tinfoil hats for sale in the lobby.
You are extremely rude. Go ahead, take the time to grace us with your intelligence. To me, it seems you just gave up and used excuses.
I can't believe I'm still reading this thread, but it's like watching a train wreck -- it's awful, but I can't turn away. I think Megan McArdle offers a good, practical compromise on this issue:
I feel it's a problem when a young mother takes her baby for a checkup and is given a single page of information on the vaccines her child is to receive. This bit of information is most likely the only information this mother knows about the vaccine, assuming she hasn't done any research and reading on her own. She has no idea about the ingredients, the chance of adverse reaction, the possible risks, and all the things that some of us know goes on behind the scenes. She is basically handed a paper to read at her convenience and the baby gets the shots. I don't feel that is properly informing the mother.
So what is it that you do or say, as a nurse, to educate your patients further concerning the risk of vaccinations? Do you offer information verbally, or present them with printed material? And if the latter....does your facility know you are doing this?
You are extremely rude. Go ahead, take the time to grace us with your intelligence. To me, it seems you just gave up and used excuses.
No, I didn't waste more time than that post deserved. Actually THIS post affords it more time than it deserved as well. Not sure how much time YOU think it was worth, but.....I owe it nothing more.
Rude? Seems we have some selective interpretations at work here. Rude has been all over this thread, including your own posts, AND the very rude rant that I was responding to in my own. But wait, someone in agreement with your odd world views is informative and all rude ranting is forgiven?
Because you found a single like-minded person to share your very narrow, very warped view of science doesn't increase the value of any of your statements.
So what is it that you do or say, as a nurse, to educate your patients further concerning the risk of vaccinations?
She already said in a reply to one of my posts that she believes it is her job to "educate" her patients against vaccines. Hopefully, someone at her facility has picked up on this and is taking these public comments to the administration at her facility because someone needs to advocate for those patients.
I can't believe I'm still reading this thread, but it's like watching a train wreck -- it's awful, but I can't turn away. I think Megan McArdle offers a good, practical compromise on this issue:
It's definitely become a strange world when the far-right and far-left agree on something.....although the crux of this article is PRO, I'm surprised at the number of ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals who are on the same side of the anti-vax brigade.
RNsRWe, ASN, RN
3 Articles; 10,428 Posts
holistically....
Wow, just wow. I started to respond to various points of your rant, but there were just so many errors, fallacies, half-truths and such in your text I couldn't possibly get to them all and still be on the same calendar day. Please tell me you aren't actually a licensed healthcare provider.
Tinfoil hats for sale in the lobby.