Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally?

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2017

How is the purity of vaccines today compared to in the past? Purity being the absence of foreign matter and unnamed antigens.

From the same link:

The final question this family had was about preservatives in vaccines, including aluminum and mercury, which was something the wife's family had brought up as a concern about vaccines. "They want to know how it can be safe for their grandchild to be injected with metals like this into their bloodstream?"
Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth. It occurs naturally in rocks and soil. In fact we all have aluminum in our bodies right now just by drinking water and eating plants and fish that naturally contain small amounts of it. Infants get more aluminum into their system in a year from breastmilk than they do from all the vaccines they get in that year combined. Breastfeeding for a year gives a child 7 milligrams of aluminum, formula feeding can give up to 117 milligrams in a year. All of the vaccines combined in the first year provide 4.4 milligrams.*
Aluminum salt is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant boosts the immune system's response to the antigen. The amount of aluminum salt in each vaccine is well below what would be considered toxic for an infant. Like we say all too frequently in medicine, the dose makes the poison.
Now, on to the mercury question. The mercury in vaccines is known commercially as thimerosal, which has about 50% mercury content and is used as a preservative. Why was this ever used in the first place? It acts to keep the vaccine fresh in storage. It is also important to know that there are different types of mercury. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is the naturally occurring form of mercury, and not methylmercury which is an industrial byproduct that builds up in fish and in the human body.
In the mid-1990s thimerosal was removed from all single-dose pediatric vaccines in the U.S. in response to public outcry over its use. Some but not all brands of multi-dose influenza vaccines still contain thimerosal. Despite a lack of evidence that the preservative in its dose in vaccines posed a health risk, the CDC recommended the removal in hopes of calming public fears, but the move had the opposite effect. Doctors and public health professionals like myself have been wringing our hands at the move ever since.
While many studies have failed to show any harm from thimerosal in vaccines, regardless, you don't even need to ask the question anymore. Thimerosal is no longer in the vaccines your child is going to get.

Kooky Korky, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2017

Not only did he have a tiny "n", but it was later shown that, totally apart from that, he falsified his data because he had a financial stake in the outcome of the study. (That's the part he lost his license over. It's not that unusual, depending on the topic of the study, and not automatically wrong, to have a small "n" in a study.)

Of course pharmaceutical houses or doctors or the government never have a financial stake in research.

You all accuse those who are unsure or who are anti-vax of being unscientific. But maybe those who believe anything they read from certain sources are no better, no different.

Kooky Korky, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2017

She was lost because what you said made absolutely zero sense.

It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?

It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...

You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.

Kooky Korky, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2017

I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this comment.
And I was the poster who said you're throwing your religious beliefs into the discussion in an illogical way, for what it's worth, not wtbcrna. You stated that HPV could be prevented if people abstained from having sex, as if that should be the sole solution. Most people don't believe in or practice abstinence until marriage, but luckily there are still ways to prevent HPV---the Gardasil vaccine, and condom use---that don't involve imposing sexual repression on others.
And the Duggars??? Really? You're actually defending the beliefs of that family? Are you unaware of the fact that the oldest son sexually abused several of his younger sisters for years, and that the family didn't approach the police about it for several more years? Do you think their arcane beliefs about sexuality could possibly be related to this?

The Duggar's are entitled to their beliefs just as you are. I've already addressed the issue of their son.

So answer my questions. What did I say about my religious beliefs except that I said "Jesus"?

Horseshoe, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2017

It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?
It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...
You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.

Your post did not have anything to do with herd immunity, the subject at hand.

This essay explains it perfectly.

The Unforgiving Math That Stops Epidemics | Quanta Magazine

WestCoastSunRN, MSN, CNS · Oct 31, 2017

I think it's more than just being completely against vaccines/antivaxxer, but we have seen comments from more than one poster how flu vaccines are not effective/needed, vaccines overwhelming infant immune system, autism/vaccines, autoimmune issues/vaccines, long term effects of vaccines, HPV vaccine/sex issues etc.
I think every excuse that is used to not get vaccines has been discussed and the latest turn seems to be well if you were more warm and cuddly people would get vaccinated more.

I hear you. I'm not a warm cuddly person myself, I just play one at the bedside. It's been frustrating, though, to try to engage in this thread. As JKL33 stated earlier, there are nuances to those who are undecided on vaccines. I tried to give examples of the types of things I hear people ask/question. I tried to stay away from outlier characteristics (ie. conspiracy theorists) and focus on people who are mostly mainstream types with internet access who are afraid at every turn they could be doing something to harm their child. That's the audience to focus on.

You have good information. Don't dilute it with emotion.

I learned things about threshold in this thread I didn't know before. I don't work in primary care or with a patient population whose primary concern is if their vaccines are up-to-date. That basic epidemiology is light years in the past for me -- way back in nursing school or even before. The refreshers I've gotten here are great.

JKL33 · Oct 31, 2017

I think it's more than just being completely against vaccines/antivaxxer, but we have seen comments from more than one poster how flu vaccines are not effective/needed, vaccines overwhelming infant immune system, autism/vaccines, autoimmune issues/vaccines, long term effects of vaccines, HPV vaccine/sex issues etc.
I think every excuse that is used to not get vaccines has been discussed and the latest turn seems to be well if you were more warm and cuddly people would get vaccinated more.

I appreciate your concession and agree there have been some disappointing/surprising comments along the way, given that basic information is accessible.

No one took a turn on you though...it's just that conversations about two different aspects of this issue were being discussed simultaneously at some points along the way. We weren't arguing against the facts, but rather discussing whether their presentation might make a difference for those who aren't decidedly anti-vaxx. This is significant because there are indeed anti-vaxx people, and then there are those whom we might be in a position to help make sense of all this. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.

2018nursewi · Oct 31, 2017

And that is your choice. What you are not getting is I have the right to make my own choices. It is amazing how part of this thread discussed people forcing their opinions down the throats of others. I voiced my opinion and my own personal choices and pretty much got attacked for it. It seems you are angry/upset at how I feel about the vaccine. I stated already I do not voice my opinion on any vaccine to patients. So why you feel so heated about what vaccines I choose for myself or my family makes no sense.

I don't feel that Klone is forcing her opinion down your throat, I just think this is a topic very important to her. I'm getting the feeling you're feeling trapped by the lack of evidence in your favor. I understand that is your opinion on the topic, but I can admit I am having a hard time seeing your point of view in this particular situation. Gardasil can prevent cervical cancer caused by HPV. Why would you not want to protect your children (or yourself) from the pain and intense treatment required for cervical, cancer, anal, penile, and throat cancer? I recently cared for a woman with anal cancer caused by HPV who had undergone a 12 hour surgery to treat her disease. If I could choose to receive a vaccine to avoid that, I know I would and have.

allnurses Guide · Oct 31, 2017

Of course pharmaceutical houses or doctors or the government never have a financial stake in research.
You all accuse those who are unsure or who are anti-vax of being unscientific. But maybe those who believe anything they read from certain sources are no better, no different.

This again is lack of understanding of research and a typical antivaccine argument.

1. Most initial pharmaceutical/vaccine research is done with government grants

2. Pharmaceutical companies make very little of their overall profits from traditional vaccines

3. Post marketing surveillance of vaccines is almost never funded by pharmaceutical companies.

4. Vaccines are the most widely tested and the only medications that constantly undergo postmarketing ssurvelliance and studies.

chocoholic999 · Oct 31, 2017

Please look at historical facts and data from the 1918 flu. It was not the elderly and infirm who died from the flu...it was the young and healthy.

allnurses Guide · Oct 31, 2017

It made plenty of sense. How did the 2 become ill? Who infected them? How hard is that to understand?
It's such a simple question that you can't answer it. Here's a hint - the ones who were vaxxed but for whom the vax didn't work seriously outnumber the 3 who did not get vaxxed. So...
You don't like the answer because it just doesn't suit you.

Still not really understanding, but flu vaccine has a 40-60% overall efficacy rate. Anyone that coughs that has the flu can directly transmit the flu within a few feet of. Those aerosilized flu particles can survive on surfaces for up to 24 hours. So you tell us how someone can catch the flu so easily.

allnurses Guide · Oct 31, 2017

I appreciate your concession and agree there have been some disappointing/surprising comments along the way, given that basic information is accessible.
No one took a turn on you though...it's just that conversations about two different aspects of this issue were being discussed simultaneously at some points along the way. We weren't arguing against the facts, but rather discussing whether their presentation might make a difference for those who aren't decidedly anti-vaxx. This is significant because there are indeed anti-vaxx people, and then there are those whom we might be in a position to help make sense of all this. Those are the ones I'm concerned about.

I understand what you mean but that it isn't the topic of this thread.

There are though several articles about that topic .