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.

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

Hence the mess we have.

The mess this country and the world is in is the overwhelming belief that personal opinions/conspiracy theories are just as valid as peer reviewed scientific evidence from reputable science journals.

Antiscience is the greatest threat the world will ever know.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

The mess this country and the world is in is the overwhelming belief that personal opinions/conspiracy theories are just as valid as peer reviewed scientific evidence from reputable science journals.

Antiscience is the greatest threat the world will ever know.

The age of confirmation bias.

[NotMyProblem MSN, ASN, BSN, MSN, LPN, RN]

It is impossible to get the flu from the inactivated flu vaccine.

If you choose not to have life-saving measures the result is you die. If you choose to not have the flu shot the result is you have to wear a mask or get fired. It is a choice with a consequence in both cases is it not?

Have your family members been tested for lab-confirmed influenza, because as above, you can not get the flu from the inactivated vaccine, so you are basing your choice on two things that are wrong. Again, it also doesn't have anything to do with a strong immune system: you didn't catch the "flu"from your family members because the didn't have the flu.

She may never catch the flu even if she never has the vaccine, but if she does (or you do and pass it to her) she is at a higher risk of complications including death. If both of you are ok with that, its your choice. Again, if I had a 60% chance of not passing a potentially deadly illness to my parent, it would be worth it to me to have a very safe vaccine.

Again, you can not catch the flu from the inactivated vaccine. It's impossible. If as a healthcare professional you allow people to think that then you are negligent to your duty.

People make mistakes, sure, but that why we rely on the scientific method.

I don't think anyone will be upset. Embarrassed, saddened, concerned sure. Seriously consider your position on this because what you cite as the foundation of your argument is without a doubt absolutely false.

So now, you are suggesting that what I an seeing is not happening in my own family and that I go against my mom's wishes by reconsidering having her injected with something that she has refused since they developed this stuff? What happened to being a patient advocate? What if I suggest that you and your family STOP taking it because taking this one doesn't prevent the flu; they simply HOPE that it does? Will you reconsider your viewpoint? What makes what you think about this more important than what I think about it? Because they tested people? Do you know any of the participants? Or are you simply taking their word because of course, they are people and they would not deceive you in any manner?

If you are embarrassed that I have a mind of my own and will NEVER agree to EVERYTHING that is presented as evidenced, that is YOUR RIGHT. Anyone can see that what is evidence today, can turn out to be BS tomorrow.

I had the flu ONCE in my 52 years on this earth and it was more than 20 years ago. I have been blessed to not be on any medications for anything. So something that I'm doing must be right. Something about what I think must be on the money because it has worked well for me for years without the flu vaccine. If you come to my home, you will not even find any OTC meds here. So, I stand my ground that I resent anyone deciding to force anything on a select few.

I feel that we as a whole should be embarrassed as a profession to be pushed over so much as to allow them to force this all-important vaccine ONLY on us.

[WestCoastSunRN, MSN, CNS]

Antiscience is the greatest threat the world will ever know.

It's dangerous when anyone stops thinking for her/himself. Most of what I have read in these pages of comments from those who have been labeled as "antivaccine" (and now "antiscience") represents people asking questions, and people being very cautious about having all the answers for an entire population. On the other side you have folks in this thread who are willing to do everything but physically restrain people to get vaccines into them. This is with the notion that doing so will protect the innocent. This argument, interestingly, shares the same logic as those who are anti-abortion for the sake of protecting unborn babies.

In fact this entire thread is making for a fascinating mini-sociological experiment -- though I doubt that was the OP's intention.

One poster's religious views have been mentioned (sometimes with not well-veiled disgust), and yet there is religious-like devotion behind the defense of science here that I, personally, find just as distracting to the conversation at hand. Good science is about asking questions and testing theories and NEVER EVER being afraid your hypothesis is wrong. Medicine is an inexact science. Doctor's know this, nurses know this --- we have years upon years of scientific discovery to prove it! Science is not some infallible god. It is an amoral tool. And thus far, that tool has given us good and bad. I would count vaccines in the 'good' category, for sure.

But does anyone really think that we know everything there is to know about vaccines and immunology at this point in 2017? We have 200 years of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective? Really? Do we? In what way? How many vaccines can be given together and still be safe and effective? How many, total, can a human body sustain in a lifetime without injury? How do auto-immune conditions effect vaccine safety? Are all auto-immune conditions the same when considering vaccine safety? Why was mercury taken out of vaccines? Because the CDC was strong-armed? Then why shouldn't we put it back? It would be far more cost-effective than using single-dose vials. There are lot's of "why"s a person can and should ask as we go forward with creating new vaccines and mandating them.

We take brand-new, healthy humans and begin injecting substances into them immediately after birth. We had better have damn good reasons for doing so, followed by equally good methods of educating and advocating for patients. Are we really going to take offense at people who question that? Are we really going to respond with defensiveness and name-calling?

Like it or lump it, we are no longer in the age of "doctor know's best". People get their information from all sorts of places these days -- but do remember that your "educated" anti-vaxxers may very well have read the same peer - reviewed literature you have read -- and still have questions. Also vaccine injuries happen. Maybe not often, but if it happens to YOUR kid, then it matters to you. And that's no more fear-mongering talk than the talk about disease epidemics if we don't force every human to get vaccinated by controlling their food and water supply.

How we talk about things matters.

[KatieMI, BSN, MSN, RN]

So now, you are suggesting that what I an seeing is not happening in my own family and that I go against my mom's wishes by reconsidering having her injected with something that she has refused since they developed this stuff? What happened to being a patient advocate? What if I suggest that you and your family STOP taking it because taking this one doesn't prevent the flu; they simply HOPE that it does? Will you reconsider your viewpoint? What makes what you think about this more important than what I think about it? Because they tested people? Do you know any of the participants? Or are you simply taking their word because of course, they are people and they would not deceive you in any manner?

If you are embarrassed that I have a mind of my own and will NEVER agree to EVERYTHING that is presented as evidenced, that is YOUR RIGHT. Anyone can see that what is evidence today, can turn out to be BS tomorrow.

I had the flu ONCE in my 52 years on this earth and it was more than 20 years ago. I have been blessed to not be on any medications for anything. So something that I'm doing must be right. Something about what I think must be on the money because it has worked well for me for years without the flu vaccine. If you come to my home, you will not even find any OTC meds here. So, I stand my ground that I resent anyone deciding to force anything on a select few.

I feel that we as a whole should be embarrassed as a profession to be pushed over so much as to allow them to force this all-important vaccine ONLY on us.

You also see that the moon gets up in the sky every time after the sun goes down, as countless generation of humans did for the last 100000 years. It still doesn't mean that the moon comes up BECAUSE the sun goes down.

That's absolutely your right to refuse any medical action, medication or procedure, or think that by questioning work of others you extoll your own intellectual value, so to say. But, if you choose to live in developed First World society (and, yes, it is YOUR CHOICE), it is not your right to do anything that can negatively affect others. Likewise, you can drink yourself into oblivion in your own house, but you cannot drive while drunk - not because it is dangerous for you, but because you can kill someone else. Refusing to vaccinate, leaving alone personal benefits, which can be significant but not decisive for some people concerned with "substances" being injected into them, endangers others - primarily, very young, very sick and very old. If such a person - a preemie baby or someone who took a gift of life from another person who died but left pieces of his or her life to prolong others' lives, - catches a prevenatble disease from a person who "chooses not to vaccinate", in my book it is equals knowingly and willingly performing actions which with high probability can cause great bodily harm or death. Just like driving drunk, throwing objects from a bridge to a highway or keeping a loaded gun in a place where it can be found by a child.

I really do not understand why people inflict such emotional suffering upon themselves if they just do not satisfied with the fact that living in the First World society implies having significant amount of social responsibilities toward others. There are helluva lot of countries where nobody cares about you being vaccinated or not, and which ignore modern preventive medicine altogether. Many of them have pleasant climate, lower taxes, easy immigration laws and much less pressure to conform to certain social norms - aka "more freedom", if one chooses to name it like that.

BTW, nasal smear test for flu costs about $50 usually covered by insurance, doesn't require blood draw and can be done in pretty much any Urgent Care. Next time, when your family "gets flu" at least 3 weeks after shot, do it to make sure that it was flu - it which case, there's Tamiflu option. 3 weeks is the time for IgG synthesis to get to the max.

[Wuzzie]

Every single year, I watch my dad and brothers get that injection and later suffer for a week or two with the flu. Every single year, I go to check on them to see how they're doing and if they need anything, yet I remain flu-free.

I understand what you are saying and you are certainly within your right to make decisions based on what you feel is right for you but this statement has me mystified. Are you saying you honestly believe that your family has gotten an active flu infection from a shot that contains a dead virus? If so, can you explain how you think this is possible? Or are you saying they get the vaccine but still get the flu at some later date? I find it interesting that they get the flu every single year. That seems to be an oddly high rate of occurrence in what I would guess are reasonably healthy people. Prior to getting the flu shot I have only ever had the flu once and I would imagine that my risk factor of being an ED nurse would put me at a much higher chance of getting it than the average person. If they are indeed getting the flu yearly then it seems your family has drawn the immunologic short straw.

[NotMyProblem MSN, ASN, BSN, MSN, LPN, RN]

You also see that the moon gets up in the sky every time after the sun goes down, as countless generation of humans did for the last 100000 years. It still doesn't mean that the moon comes up BECAUSE the sun goes down.

That's absolutely your right to refuse any medical action, medication or procedure. But it is not your right to do anything that can negatively affect others. Likewise, you can drink yourself into oblivion in your own house, but you cannot drive while drunk - not because it is dangerous for you, but because you can kill someone else.

Test for flu costs about $50 usually covered by insurance, doesn't require blood draw and can be done in pretty much any Urgent Care. Next time, when your family "gets flu" at least 3 weeks after shot, do it to make sure that it was flu - it which case, there's Tamiflu option. 3 weeks is the time for IgG synthesis to get to the max.

There again, I am going by what they said and if they want to get tested, it is their right. I have never told them NOT to get the flu shot. I do not force my beliefs on anyone else. My whole argument is that this mandate in impeding on MY rights. If you guys want to take the flu shot or any other vaccination for that matter, knock yourselves out. But why do you have to force someone else to get on your bandwagon? That is all that I am saying.

Not everyone has the same train of thought as healthcare workers and there are many laypersons that are healthier than healthcare providers. So why the mandate? Most people know how to take care of themselves. In my opinion, people are too quick to pop a pill or a needle for any little thing that pops up. I don't suffer from anxiety. But I see no one forcing me to take Xanax as a prevention because of its effectiveness, in order to keep a grip on the stressors of acute care nursing.

People have rights. Who are you or I or anyone to choose what rights get taken away? Do any ONE of you guys argue or debate with your patients about this injection the way that it is done among nurses? I'm certain you do not. You simply do your required patient teaching, give them the handouts, and leave the decision to accept or refuse up to them. But you do not have that same respect for your colleagues. The % of effectiveness is the same for the healthcare providers as it is for the lawyer, or the judge, or the President, or the governor, or any other non-healthcare individual. But no one forces this vaccine on them. Go figure...

For me, it is all about the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. How dare any of you look negatively on anyone who has a different opinion than yourselves? Nothing about healthcare is fool-proof. This flu vaccine debate is among healthcare professionals only, I'm sure, because everyone else can refuse the darn thing, without debate or discussion.

If I get a 60-ish% on any one of my nursing courses, it is an automatic failure. It is the same in all of our educational systems in this country. If a school has a 60% NCLEX success rate, students tend to look elsewhere. So, why are we so onboard with this as an acceptable result for MANDATORY administration? If you want to give or receive it, do so. But to MANDATE it when these percentages are rarely acceptable in most all other aspects of our lives is rather hypocritical to me.

[klone, MSN, RN]

If they are indeed getting the flu yearly then it seems your family has drawn the immunologic short straw.

Or, what they perceive as "the flu" is not actually "the flu." I would say that's much more likely than getting an disease EVERY SINGLE YEAR that most people only get 2-3 times in their lifetime.

[Farawyn]

If these are truly nurses spewing all this anecdotal stuff, I have to say that I am so embarrassed for my profession. Woo "science" seems to be having quite an impact.

Isn't part of your degree learning how to read and understand and apply evidence based...everything?

[KatieMI, BSN, MSN, RN]

For me, it is all about the right to choose. How dare any of you look negatively on anyone who has a different opinion than yourselves? Nothing about healthcare is fool-proof. This flu vaccine debate is among healthcare professionals only, I'm sure, because everyone else can refuse the darn thing, without debate or discussion.

I dare because I am immunosupressed person, and that happened because many years ago, one beautiful day, some mom back in Soviet Union decided to "use her rights" and not give her kid a shot to prevent measles, and so did my mom as well. I met that kid somewhere. The measles almost killed me, then left me with severe steroid-dependent asthma. If I catch flu for real, I have pretty good a chance to end up on vent - or worse.

With that, I still have enough immune system to get vaccinated. Many people don't, and I will be like that one day. I know it. I will be relaying on the mercy and social consciousness of others around me. And I am pretty scared with the idea that once my life might be in hand of someone who, after passing what is considered to be the most rigorous scientific-based course in the World for nurses, taking Board exams and getting licence to practice nursing, still not have enough understanding of basics of science about how human body works and respect for fellow human beings to risk my life because some poorly-based and gazillion-times debunked "beliefs" which he or she deems as "freedom of choice". Their "freedom of choice" shouldn't be my, or anyone else's death sentence.

If you really that much concerned about it, there are tons of doctor's offices and HHCs where flu shots are still not mandatory. I know it absolutely for sure.

[KatieMI, BSN, MSN, RN]

If these are truly nurses spewing all this anecdotal stuff, I have to say that I am so embarrassed for my profession. Woo "science" seems to be having quite an impact.

Isn't part of your degree learning how to read and understand and apply evidence based...everything?

I just afraid to imagine now how these nurses can treat a science-smart new grad dreaming of a CRNA or NP program. Truly, anti-intellectualism is becoming a sad reality of American nursing.

[Guest219794]

Here's my $.02.

I'm not against the flu vaccine. I'm against being forced to take it by holding my job over my head. If the vaccine is ‘that' important, then pass the necessary laws to make EVERYONE take it, including the garbage man and the Wal-Mart volunteer.

Every single year, I watch my dad and brothers get that injection and later suffer for a week or two with the flu. Every single year, I go to check on them to see how they're doing and if they need anything, yet I remain flu-free.

Here lately, I've been forced to take the shot or find another job. Why are people so eager to take away another's right to choose? As a patient, I can refuse life-saving measures. As a healthcare worker, I can refuse this same life-saving measures, but not that darn 60-ish %-effective flu vaccine???

In my family, the flu vaccine is 100% INEFFECTIVE. But it is their right to have it. As a nurse in this same family, I don't have the right to NOT have it. THAT is what I have a problem with!! Thank God for a strong immune system.

I, as my mom's caregiver, do not allow anyone to give her the flu vaccine because she was refusing it when she was making her own decisions. As a dependent now with all of her chronic illnesses (DM, HTN, etc), she has YET to contract the flu.

I respect the work that the CDC does. But they are JUST people who are not above making mistakes like the rest of us. Every single patient that I've had who refused the vaccine, did so because they said they got the flu a week later. So, they exercise their right to refuse.

Do you guys tell them that the vaccine did what it was supposed to do? That we ‘gave' them the flu at a charge so that they couldn't go out and catch it for free?

This point of view may upset some of you. But this has been and continues to be my eye-witness experience every year that members of my family ‘choose' to take that injection. The flu vaccine is not effective on everyone, and it doesn't know which of its recipients wear scrubs. So why MANDATE everyone in healthcare to take it? Because you can??? What other rights will we handover to the powers-that-be?

" I'm against being forced to take it by holding my job over my head."

"Here lately, I've been forced to take the shot or find another job. Why are people so eager to take away another's right to choose?"

It is not unusual for individual rights to conflict with each other, and for policies and laws to be made by weighing the impact on certain decisions. Since the best evidence available shows that if you do not get the flu shot you put patients in jeopardy, it would be irresponsible for the hospital to allow you to forgo the immunization, based on your personal beliefs.

You have the absolute right to believe what you want. You do not have the absolute right to act on those beliefs. I have the right to believe that my postman is a dangerous outer space creature. I don't have the right to kill him, even though I KNOW he threatens our beloved planet earth.

What if I believe that hand washing is dangerous to me? Sure, the CDC says it is critical for patient safety, but I can cite multiple incidents where "experts" are wrong. This agenda is being pushed by Big Soap. You can't deny my right to believe this nonsense, but you can sure as hell fire me for not complying with an evidenced based policy.

"Do you guys tell them that the vaccine did what it was supposed to do? That we ‘gave' them the flu"

Well, I don't tell them that because it is not true, and would show me to be shamefully ignorant.

You cite some anecdotal evidence for your beliefs. Anecdotal evidence is a powerful thing. Talk to somebody who was thrown from an automobile just before it exploded. And this only happened because they were not wearing a seat belt. This person will be disinclined to believe in the safety of seat belts.

Lots of articles about the strength of anecdotal evidence.

The reason for this cognitive disconnect is that we have evolved brains that pay attention to anecdotes because false positives (believing there is a connection between A and B when there is not) are usually harmless, whereas false negatives (believing there is no connection between A and B when there is) may take you out of the gene pool.

I think that a big part of the reaction you get hear is that many here believe that good nursing is based on evidence based practices.