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?
What can we do about this? Just as citizens of the human race. This kind of 'research protocol' where anecdote trumps epidemiology is just a symptom of a society that doesn't discern between what they want to believe and reliable information. The latter is often NOT what we want to believe!
That's the question Dr. Offit covers in his 59 minute talk. It is well worth the time.
The only thing I'd say that we have to keep off the table here is adding religious faith to the mix. I think that should be a separate issue. He talks about how he scoffed at evolution (not science-based) in a room of nurses and he lost them then. Personally, I think that undercuts our argument. Just leave that alone.
Speaking for myself, what really sticks in my craw over some of these remarks is the arrogance that we are all just blind followers of a doctrine and we need "free thinkers" such as andi to show us the light.
I'm sure that many of us long ago passed the stage of development where questioning EVERYTHING was The Way To The Truth. (Been awhile since I studied Psych, is it Kolberg I'm thinking of?)
And that stage supposed to be A STAGE. We are meant to evolve past that. A true hallmark of maturity is being able to find a healthy balance between questioning and using facts and evidence.
The sentiment that we all need to be schooled by these free thinkers with a deluge of conspiracy theory websites is just....I don't even know...what is beyond hubris?
Anyone notice that there seems to be a collective of people who fall under the heading "Against"? As in, against everything. Not FOR anything. Against vaccinations. Against GMO. Against seatbelt regulations, helmet regulations. Against fast food availability. Against school requirements, against anything they perceive as 'forced'. Against any law or concept for which being FOR it would get them out of the self-important "Against Group".
You forgot water fluoridation, which was actually referenced earlier ... :)
I think for some it has a lot to do with ego, almost a narcissism. "I am too special/superior/intelligent/whatever for you to TELL ME WHAT TO DO." That's why they not only bristle against health mandates, but distrust any kind of authority, disparage corporations, and scoff at leaders in any kind of capacity, whether it's the POTUS or their unit manager. Everything is a conspiracy, nothing is ever as it seems, blah blah.
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.
There have been several times I was so exasperated I was about to unsubscribe from this thread, but I'm really glad now that I didn't. I have read some of the best, well-thought-out, eloquent, funny, poignant, well-spoken, and sharp posts from the pro-vaxxers than I could have found anywhere.
It makes me really proud to be a member of the AN community. YOU GUYS ROCK!
I doubt that. I am amazed at how many go along with various scientific studies, claiming it as truth, when there has been evidence of scientists twisting the data. This can happen especially by those who take a special interest in the study group itself.
Somehow I missed this gem.
You do realize that you have EXACTLY described Wakefield and his completely bogus study, don't you? Hand picked subjects, fabricated data, a financial conflict of interest. Better than a game of Clue.
It is all over Facebook . . .. .
Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN
11,305 Posts
That's the question Dr. Offit covers in his 59 minute talk. It is well worth the time.
The only thing I'd say that we have to keep off the table here is adding religious faith to the mix. I think that should be a separate issue. He talks about how he scoffed at evolution (not science-based) in a room of nurses and he lost them then. Personally, I think that undercuts our argument. Just leave that alone.