Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally?

[Emergent]

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true. She's a big believer that cannabis oil will cure just about anything and that information of course is being suppressed by the drug companies and the government.

She blames many, if not all, health problems on vaccines. She also subscribes to some disturbing anti-Semitic ideologies, blaming the network of high powered Jews, led by the evil Rothschild family.

I swear, the internet has turned slightly eccentric people into extremists. 30 years ago this woman was into macrobiotics, native Americans, and New Age philosophies.

[Kooky Korky, BSN, RN]

According to my own purely anecdotal observations, many anti vaxxers are just deeply disquiet about multiple life issues which may not have anything to do with vaccinations. Anti-vax movement provides them a convenient and even kind of fashionable outlet to express denial, undoing and all other negative defensive mechanisms, whatever the real cause(s) of their dissatisfaction with reality and life might be.

Thanks. You make us all sound like mental cases. Some of us are actually just as well-read and intelligent and stable mentally as you are.

Then there are pro vaxxers who are sick enough to skim their patients pain meds and weak enough to let nurses' aides run the show and endure no breaks day in and day out.

How many of these deeply disquiet anti vaxxers do you know?

It's easy to try to cheaply discredit your opponents and never give them a thorough, genuine hearing. You don't want to get a bad reputation by actually studying their point of view.

Maybe their real cause of dissatisfaction is seeing autism rates skyrocket or seeing Guillian-Barre after flu shots that don't even prevent flu.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

Op-Ed: If You Distrust Vaccines, You're More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings – Mother Jones

Study: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

[elkpark]

Then there are pro vaxxers who are sick enough to skim their patients pain meds and weak enough to let nurses' aides run the show and endure no breaks day in and day out.

This is a complete red herring and non sequitur that has nothing to do with anyone's views on vaccination.

It's easy to try to cheaply discredit your opponents and never give them a thorough, genuine hearing. You don't want to get a bad reputation by actually studying their point of view.

Maybe their real cause of dissatisfaction is seeing autism rates skyrocket or seeing Guillian-Barre after flu shots that don't even prevent flu.

If anyone is "failing to give ... a thorough, genuine hearing" to the other side or not studying the point of view of the other side, it's the anti-vaxxers. The alleged connection between autism and vaccinations has been completely, thoroughly debunked. Even the question of whether autism rates actually are "skyrocketing" is controversial and unsettled. As for GBS, there was one year in which there was a connection demonstrated between a flu vaccination and GBS. That was 1976, and the vaccination involved was specifically for "swine flu." That was one year, one specific vaccination, over 40 years ago. Before and after that one year, there has been no connection shown between the flu vaccination and GBS. Individuals are no more likely to develop GBS after receiving the flu vaccination than they are to develop GBS without having received the flu vaccination (GBS was around before there were flu vaccinations, and does arise completely unrelated to flu vaccination). What does create a higher risk of GBS is having had the flu. And yet, the anti-vaxxer crowd appears to completely disregard and deny the available scientific evidence related to these issues and prefers to cling to debunked theories unsupported by any actual evidence.

[ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP]

Thanks. You make us all sound like mental cases. Some of us are actually just as well-read and intelligent and stable mentally as you are.

Then there are pro vaxxers who are sick enough to skim their patients pain meds and weak enough to let nurses' aides run the show and endure no breaks day in and day out.

How many of these deeply disquiet anti vaxxers do you know?

It's easy to try to cheaply discredit your opponents and never give them a thorough, genuine hearing. You don't want to get a bad reputation by actually studying their point of view.

Maybe their real cause of dissatisfaction is seeing autism rates skyrocket or seeing Guillian-Barre after flu shots that don't even prevent flu.

Please tell me you don't work in healthcare.

Firstly, there is NO evidence that states that vaccines are causing higher rates in autism. NONE. It is dangerous to even spread such fallacy or give it lip service as you have done.

Secondly, pot meet kettle. You attack pro-vax nurses visciously in this post with something that is completely irrelevant to the topic. Fortunately for the pro-vax, there are hundreds and thousands of studies proving the efficacy of flu-shots.

Thirdly, GBS is extremely rare. Should people stop taking all meds because of the slim chance of an extreme side effect occurring?

And finally, have you talked to some elderly people who lived through devastating illnesses such as polio, MMR, etc? I bet you are very young and didn't witness such effects. Maybe if you did, you would change your tune.

Signed,

Sister of a brilliant autistic teenager who is a physics major and top of his class.

[macawake, MSN]

Thanks. You make us all sound like mental cases. Some of us are actually just as well-read and intelligent and stable mentally as you are.

I actually think that most vaccine opponents are very well-read. The problem isn't that they don't read, it's what they read. The way the internet works, a person can find confirmation for any theory, no matter how flawed. If you don't think that man ever landed on the moon or that vaccines cause autism, there is information on the internet that you are absolutely correct in your thinking. If someone looks for confirmation, they'll find it. It doesn't mean that it's accurate information.

This following link is to a blog but I think you should read it. I find it interesting.

Motivated reasoning and the anti-vaccine movement – Respectful Insolence

Then there are pro vaxxers who are sick enough to skim their patients pain meds and weak enough to let nurses' aides run the show and endure no breaks day in and day out.

Oh seriously, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. There are most likely "pro vaxxers" who are rapists and murderers too, but that has no bearing on our discussion.

It's easy to try to cheaply discredit your opponents and never give them a thorough, genuine hearing. You don't want to get a bad reputation by actually studying their point of view.

Most of us who see vaccines as one of the most prominent achievements of modern medicine have given "anti-vaxxers" a thorough hearing. The problem is that those who oppose vaccines completely lack scientific support for the claims they make. To me it's like talking to a person who claims over and over again that the sun sets on the eastern horizon but is unable to provide any proof that it does. Until that person can provide proof that their claim has merit, I will keep on believing that it sets on the western horizon (actually it only sets true west twice a year, during the equinoxes, but it's at least "west-ish" the rest of the time ). My point is, provide scientific evidence for your beliefs, then I'll listen to you.

Maybe their real cause of dissatisfaction is seeing autism rates skyrocket or seeing Guillian-Barre after flu shots that don't even prevent flu.

Elkpark answered this very well, I agree 100%

Vaccines have saved countless lives. While I can understand that people who aren't healthcare professionals and who aren't familiar with the vast amount of research that exists, could make the mistake of believing that correlation implies causation, I am always deeply saddened when I see a healthcare professional buy into unscientific fear-mongering.

[klone, MSN, RN]

Thanks. You make us all sound like mental cases. Some of us are actually just as well-read and intelligent and stable mentally as you are..

She said "many," not "all"

I didn't take offense to it, because it doesn't apply to me. Why should you?

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Thanks. You make us all sound like mental cases. Some of us are actually just as well-read and intelligent and stable mentally as you are.

Then there are pro vaxxers who are sick enough to skim their patients pain meds and weak enough to let nurses' aides run the show and endure no breaks day in and day out.

How many of these deeply disquiet anti vaxxers do you know?

It's easy to try to cheaply discredit your opponents and never give them a thorough, genuine hearing. You don't want to get a bad reputation by actually studying their point of view.

Maybe their real cause of dissatisfaction is seeing autism rates skyrocket or seeing Guillian-Barre after flu shots that don't even prevent flu.

1. Autism rates haven't increased. The diagnostic criteria changed and now ASD covers what used to classied under other mental disorders or had no classification at all.

2. Guillian-Barre syndrome was only slightly increased in one swine flu vaccine in 1976. There has not been shown to have any differences in incidences of GBS with flu vaccines before or since then.

3. Yes, scientists and medical health professionals have listened to anti vaccine proponents, and scientists have shown over and over that vaccines are as safe as stated. It is the anti-vaccine people that refuse to listen to reason or believe any research that doesn't corroborate their point of view.

[sunflower83b]

There are two sets of conflicting data in regards to the vax-anti vax debate. One is anecdotal, personal accounts of parents who took their 12 month olds in for shots, then began to see the signs of early autism--does this prove causation? NO. Is it most likely that around 12 months is when the early signs of autism manifest? YES.

The end of this debate will come, I believe, when the medical community determines causation for autism. "We don't know why this happens, but we swear it isn't vaccinations that happen around the same time" is way weaker than "Autism is caused by a virus/infection/exposure to whatever."

Sides of this issue matter way less than finding out what causes autism. Autism may even be a blanket term for something with many causes (like cancer) but until we can explain to the public why Jimmy has autism and Johnny doesn't, some portion of them are bound not to trust vaccines that are given around the same time as the symptoms of the disease manifest because to them, that seems like causation. I eat bad food and I get sick; I smack the bee and them it stings me; I smoke then I get cancer; I eat fast food everyday then I get a heart attack. So, unless we can prove otherwise, some are bound to believe child gets vaccinated then child "gets" autism is similar.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

There are two sets of conflicting data in regards to the vax-anti vax debate. One is anecdotal, personal accounts of parents who took their 12 month olds in for shots, then began to see the signs of early autism--does this prove causation? NO. Is it most likely that around 12 months is when the early signs of autism manifest? YES.

The end of this debate will come, I believe, when the medical community determines causation for autism. "We don't know why this happens, but we swear it isn't vaccinations that happen around the same time" is way weaker than "Autism is caused by a virus/infection/exposure to whatever."

Sides of this issue matter way less than finding out what causes autism. Autism may even be a blanket term for something with many causes (like cancer) but until we can explain to the public why Jimmy has autism and Johnny doesn't, some portion of them are bound not to trust vaccines that are given around the same time as the symptoms of the disease manifest because to them, that seems like causation. I eat bad food and I get sick; I smack the bee and them it stings me; I smoke then I get cancer; I eat fast food everyday then I get a heart attack. So, unless we can prove otherwise, some are bound to believe child gets vaccinated then child "gets" autism is similar.

ASD is most likely genetic in nature with multiple genes involved.

Causes - Autism Society

It is unlikely that anti-vaccine crowd will ever disappear. They have literally been around for over 150 years.

History of Anti-vaccination Movements | History of Vaccines

The only way to reduce the anti-vaccine/conspiracy theory people is to prioritize science in our public schools and government.

[elkpark]

There are two sets of conflicting data in regards to the vax-anti vax debate. One is anecdotal, personal accounts of parents who took their 12 month olds in for shots, then began to see the signs of early autism--does this prove causation? NO. Is it most likely that around 12 months is when the early signs of autism manifest? YES.

The end of this debate will come, I believe, when the medical community determines causation for autism. "We don't know why this happens, but we swear it isn't vaccinations that happen around the same time" is way weaker than "Autism is caused by a virus/infection/exposure to whatever."

Sides of this issue matter way less than finding out what causes autism. Autism may even be a blanket term for something with many causes (like cancer) but until we can explain to the public why Jimmy has autism and Johnny doesn't, some portion of them are bound not to trust vaccines that are given around the same time as the symptoms of the disease manifest because to them, that seems like causation. I eat bad food and I get sick; I smack the bee and them it stings me; I smoke then I get cancer; I eat fast food everyday then I get a heart attack. So, unless we can prove otherwise, some are bound to believe child gets vaccinated then child "gets" autism is similar.

The origin of the concern about autism and vaccines wasn't just that people noticed their young children got vaccinated and then displayed symptoms of autism -- it was a journal article claiming a link. An article which, since then, has been thoroughly debunked, and retracted and disavowed by the journal that originally published it. It has been revealed that the author falsified his data and had a financial interest in the result of the "study," and he ended up losing his medical license as a result. And yet, the "true believers" just won't let it go.

[JKL33]

I think good information is available to lay persons now, and I'm not sure it was always the case or that it was presented in a way that seemed as compelling as the information presented by the anti-vaccine side.

Example: Parents often ask why the vaccines must be given on this particular schedule - and believed that this would overwhelm the baby's immune system. It was pretty common to hear a response like, "Your baby is exposed to multiple germs every day - hundreds or thousands! Even eating food introduces germs!"

That's fine and good (and true), but it's not going to make sense to the parent because the parent isn't dealing with a feverish, fussy and/or "lethargic" baby every time the baby "eats food." It makes perfect sense to them that the immune system could be overwhelmed because clearly something is different; the child is acting a little different.

[by the way, this same rhetoric is still available though reputable online sources; I know it's factual, but I call it rhetoric because it isn't answering the underlying unspoken question, which is, "why does my baby act so punky after getting immunizations, and is that okay?"]

I was once told at my doctor's office that vaccines don't cause fever. I had inquired whether it would be okay to give a dose of acetaminophen prior to the visit - and was told it was unnecessary because if my baby had a fever after the previous set of vaccines, it must've been a coincidence.

Misinformation and information delivered in a paternalistic manner breeds mistrust in people who simply feel very responsible for taking care of a tiny baby.

I really wonder if more respectful, forthright discussions could have helped, especially before wide use of "Dr. Google." Back then, if you happened to come across Dr. Sears' book - you just might end up giving it all a lot of thought.

No need to be a conspiracy theorist at all.

BTW, everyone I am responsible for is FULLY vaccinated, on time. :)

[LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM]

I think good information is available to lay persons now, and I'm not sure it was always the case or that it was presented in a way that seemed as compelling as the information presented by the anti-vaccine side.

Example: Parents often ask why the vaccines must be given on this particular schedule - and believed that this would overwhelm the baby's immune system. It was pretty common to hear a response like, "Your baby is exposed to multiple germs every day - hundreds or thousands! Even eating food introduces germs!"

That's fine and good (and true), but it's not going to make sense to the parent because the parent isn't dealing with a feverish, fussy and/or "lethargic" baby every time the baby "eats food." It makes perfect sense to them that the immune system could be overwhelmed because clearly something is different; the child is acting a little different.

[by the way, this same rhetoric is still available though reputable online sources; I know it's factual, but I call it rhetoric because it isn't answering the underlying unspoken question, which is, "why does my baby act so punky after getting immunizations, and is that okay?"]

I was once told at my doctor's office that vaccines don't cause fever. I had inquired whether it would be okay to give a dose of acetaminophen prior to the visit - and was told it was unnecessary because if my baby had a fever after the previous set of vaccines, it must've been a coincidence.

Misinformation and information delivered in a paternalistic manner breeds mistrust in people who simply feel very responsible for taking care of a tiny baby.

I really wonder if more respectful, forthright discussions could have helped, especially before wide use of "Dr. Google." Back then, if you happened to come across Dr. Sears' book - you just might end up giving it all a lot of thought.

No need to be a conspiracy theorist at all.

BTW, everyone I am responsible for is FULLY vaccinated, on time. :)

I agree. I think it's completely valid to have questions/concerns about your own child's health, and to want to be able to discuss them. The fact that SO MANY vaccines are now on the schedule compared to a generation ago, and that newborns receive SO MANY at once can be off-putting, especially when parents are not health professionals, and when there can be side-effects like high fevers. It's scary to put your baby through that, and if more pediatricians were better about taking the time to listen to parent's concerns, instead of being paternalistic and judgmental about anyone with even a question about vaccines, there might be a lot fewer anti-vaxxers.

I had a conversation with a pregnant client just a few days ago who was considering refusing Vitamin K for the baby at birth, because she felt like "all newborn babies aren't born requiring immediate help for their immune system." I told her to look at it a different way---that actually, she's right, the vast majority of babies who don't get a Vitamin K shot will be absolutely fine, and won't suffer from hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. But because that one rare baby who does get it has such a devastating outcome, we recommend the shot because it's a simple solution to prevent it. We hate to put babies through anything painful, but in this case pain really is the only possible risk, and the benefits truly outweigh it. She immediately brightened, thanked me, and said that that made complete sense. She said when she had discussed her questions about it with their pediatrician, she simply said, "Don't you wear your seatbelt??? It's the same thing." That turned the client off immediately and made her feel more justified in refusing it. Hopefully now that she was listened to and spoken to respectfully she will choose it for her baby. It's hard to change everyone's mind but I also believe a little compassion goes a long way.