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?
If pro-vaxers believe in herd immunity, then how do they reconcile the fact that a small minority have such an effect on the majority of people who are vaccinated?
Because MATH.
If you don't understand why this is the case, then I have just the thing for you to read:
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, we know as nurses that there is absolutely NO safe level of mercury exposure for children.
No. We don't know that. Just because you make a phrase that appeals itself as common knowledge does not actually make it so.
And so I'll ask you for you citation on that claim. Citation?
Yet, pre-2001 there were many "scientists" that spewed forth the notion that the level of mercury in some vaccinations was not enough to cause harm in a child. (I must point out that thimerosol has extremely limited usage in newer vaccinations).
It was decided that it was better to have more expensive single dose vials without thimerosol than have immunization rates fall because people were refusing based on unfounded fears being stoked by antiscientific fearmongering antivaxxers focusing on the thimerosol. Basically, market forces dictated what happened.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
It was decided that it was better to have more expensive single dose vials without thimerosol than have immunization rates fall because people were refusing based on unfounded fears being stoked by antiscientific fearmongering antivaxxers focusing on the thimerosol. Basically, market forces dictated what happened.
Not according to the FDA, that is not the reason for reducing/eliminating thimerosal from childhood vaccines. It was because of the concerns of buildup of toxic levels of ethymercury. I've never known the FDA or the CDC to cave to pseudoscience in the past, I can't imagine they did so in this situation.
As part of the FDAMA review, the FDA evaluated the amount of mercury an infant might receive in the form of ethylmercury from vaccines under the U.S. recommended childhood immunization schedule and compared these levels with existing guidelines for exposure to methylmercury, as there are no existing guidelines for ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal. At the time of this review in 1999, the maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO. However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury.
As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
It's also worth noting that the FDA review and mandate that thimerosal be eliminated from childhood vaccines took place in 1999, which was well before the "MMR causes autism!" and Jenny McCarthy craze took hold.
Not according to the FDA, that is not the reason for reducing/eliminating thimerosal from childhood vaccines. It was because of the concerns of buildup of toxic levels of ethymercury. I've never known the FDA or the CDC to cave to pseudoscience in the past, I can't imagine they did so in this situation.
That isn't the reason it was removed from virtually all vaccines, not just those for infants under the age of six months. Note the timing on the review as right after the 1998 Wakefield MMR debacle. There was a lot of reactionary scrambling at the time.
The ultimate goal was to maintain vaccination rates. If the market didn't have a problem paying, then no reason to jump to conclusions out an abundance of caution if there was no change in efficacy and it overcame objections.
Thought I should throw in the paragraph that comes right before what you quoted.
FDA has been actively addressing the issue of thiomersal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thiomersal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thiomersal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).
If you read the rest of the article, they talk about exposure threshholds and they acted WITHOUT EMPIRICAL DATA that thiomersal was a problem. They made it very clear about that in the paragraph you quoted. They found NO PROBLEM with thiomersal but made a recommendation out of an abundance of caution and it did have to do with increasing public concern and resistance.o
That's actually what I'm concerned about, thank you for responding. I'm curious as to what "additional" education is being provided, beyond the CDC's VIS pages for each vaccine.
Concern for her patients is definitely appropriate.
Another concern that no one seems to have noted yet is the image she is presenting of nurses. There are many fields outside of healthcare in which people are trained in doing and evaluating research. Imagine what someone with say a chemistry degree is going to think of the quality of a nursing education after Andi78 "educates" them on vaccines. Heck anyone with even a non-science graduate degree has a better understanding of evaluating research. Most people outside of medicine do not know that "nurse" can be an LPN, diploma RN, ASN, BSN, etc. To them a nurse is a nurse. After being educated by this type of nurse, how much faith is someone going to put in the information provided by the next nurse they meet?
One positive of this long thread - it tells you what arguments the anti-vax parent/patient might give you when you recommend a vaccine. It's like having a mock debate, it helps you prepare for the real thing.
Another positive - it's been very entertaining!
I have to commend the posters who kept their cool and kept trying to educate. You have tremendous patience!
This is an ethical issue. Vaccinate yourself, but stop trying to force your views on others. Many disagree. Get over it. This is just one little message board out of thousands of people who feel vaccinations cause harm. So go on, get your vaccinations, eat crap, use products with ingredients known to cause cancer, drink your fluoridated water, sit on these message boards spewing negativity and hate.
It isn't spewing negativity and 'hate' (of all things) to challenge incorrect anti-vaxx propaganda with science fact. People have gotten rude and personal off and on on this thread, and that is a separate issue, and it's not OK. It's ridiculous for you to call concerned people challenging your stance 'hate', it's lame and victims of real hate probably don't appreciate the comparison. I wonder if you feel 'forced' by opposing views because your view is indefensible? If so, that is OK, this is a debate (I think).
I sure would LIKE to force you to vaccinate your children, if for no other reason than I think it is reprehensible to martyr your children and many others for some self-validating VIEW. In 1991 in Philadelphia vaccinations were forced on the children of a church community when 9 children died of measles (6 of the children had parents in the church). I'm pretty sure those children would have preferred to live. If the current measles outbreak (now at 140 and counting) gets bad enough, vaccinations won't be a 'choice'. I'm not imagining this, like others here we've been listening and reading and watching this dilemma that should not have happened unfold. And yeah, we're ticked off at the selfishness and entitlement that drives anti-vaxxers to put their precious children and ours at risk for a disease that was considered 'gone'.
Anti-vaxx propaganda (yes, that's what it is) is based at best on pseudoscience and worst on lies we've long ago revealed for what they are. The science that informs the current CDC recommendations on vaccinations is of a caliber the anti-vaxxers can't hope to approach.
This is not an ethical issue. Vaccinations are a responsibility owed to our communities and calling them a 'choice' is a pathetic attempt to make it an 'ethical' issue of personal autonomy. Vaccines don't exist just to protect YOUR kid or mine, they are to protect a community, of which the whole world together is becoming. This is not a battle between equally 'relevant' views. Views based upon pseudoscience are not comparable to science-informed views. With that logic of 'views', we'd have to respect the Flat Earth Society simply because they have a view. A badly informed view can't compete and no matter how precious to you it is, your view deserves no respect just because it's yours. We go too far playing patty cake with 'views', especially ideological ones that have ZILCH actual evidence to back them up. Crappy ideologies based on pseudoscience or faith are less worthy of respect when it comes to the safety and well being of humans. People should speak out against them, it's a matter of public safety. If that constitutes 'hate' in your mind, I call your 'views' arrogant, opportunist and offensive to actual victims of hate.
One positive of this long thread - it tells you what arguments the anti-vax parent/patient might give you when you recommend a vaccine. It's like having a mock debate, it helps you prepare for the real thing.
Another positive - it's been very entertaining!
I have to commend the posters who kept their cool and kept trying to educate. You have tremendous patience!
I agree and was going to make a comment about the posters who did so well with education about vaccines and countering the false information. I'm involved in conversations in other places and this thread certainly has been timely and informative.
Relativity is a theory. Guess what produced an entire field of science? You do know that, scientifically, "theory" does not mean a neat idea about how things ought to work, but is actually backed up by using the scientific method? Right?
OMG SCIENTISTS AND SO-CALLED EXPERTS ARE JUST ELITISTS. They just want to force their "theories" down our throats. Everyone knows that if you don't believe in a "theory" it doesn't affect you. That's why I jump out a window when I want to get to the ground floor faster than the elevator. I don't believe in gravity so it's totally fine.
SummitRN, BSN, RN
2 Articles; 1,567 Posts
Because MATH.
If you don't understand why this is the case, then I have just the thing for you to read:
UNDERSTANDING HERD IMMUNITY
https://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/understanding-herd-immunity-973298.html
No. We don't know that. Just because you make a phrase that appeals itself as common knowledge does not actually make it so.
And so I'll ask you for you citation on that claim. Citation?
It was decided that it was better to have more expensive single dose vials without thimerosol than have immunization rates fall because people were refusing based on unfounded fears being stoked by antiscientific fearmongering antivaxxers focusing on the thimerosol. Basically, market forces dictated what happened.