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.

[Richard Wolfe, RN]

I know that many vaccines work, but I also know that many do not. You can discredit the flu shot with research from the CDC. However, I still get the flu shot every year (mainly because I'm forced to at work).

People tend to take an extreme perspective on every issue. With vaccines you have one group that swears all vaccines are effective while another group wouldn't take the shot if their life depended on it (which sometimes it does). My advice would be to take all of the old school vaccines and do a lot of research before you let someone inject you with a vaccine that has been on the market for less than ten years.

[Kooky Korky, BSN, RN]

If your referring to me, i never said i was anti-vaccine. My children are up to date on all of their vaccines. I am required to receive a round of vaccines again for employment purposes in the future even though I show immunity for things such as MMR and that's fine. I routinely give patients their flu shots. I have never said to any of those patients "hey, would you like to know how I feel about the flu shot?" I love science and have always excelled in it. My husband has never gotten the flu shot by his own choice. If tomorrow he decided to get it, well good for him. I will be required to get it next year, and that's fine.

If you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella, why is it fine to have to get that vaccine again?

[wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA]

I know that many vaccines work, but I also know that many do not. You can discredit the flu shot with research from the CDC. However, I still get the flu shot every year (mainly because I'm forced to at work).

People tend to take an extreme perspective on every issue. With vaccines you have one group that swears all vaccines are effective while another group wouldn't take the shot if their life depended on it (which sometimes it does). My advice would be to take all of the old school vaccines and do a lot of research before you let someone inject you with a vaccine that has been on the market for less than ten years.

That is a bunch of nonsense. You would give up an average 60% chance to not get the flu because you don't understand the cdc reports. Why don't you try and descredit the flu vaccine from the cdc website.

As I have already stated newer vaccines are actually safer than older vaccines because they contain significantly less antigens.

Flu Vaccine Effectiveness: Questions and Answers for Health Professionals | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

[Guest219794]

I know that many vaccines work, but I also know that many do not. You can discredit the flu shot with research from the CDC. However, I still get the flu shot every year (mainly because I'm forced to at work).

People tend to take an extreme perspective on every issue. With vaccines you have one group that swears all vaccines are effective while another group wouldn't take the shot if their life depended on it (which sometimes it does). My advice would be to take all of the old school vaccines and do a lot of research before you let someone inject you with a vaccine that has been on the market for less than ten years.

While you mentioned that you are required to get the shot, you don't mention whether you are a nurse. Or more to the point, whether you are in any position to influence anybody's healthcare choices.

"A lot of research" is done, by trained scientists before these vaccines are approved. This is not to be confused with a Google search, which can be done by anybody with two fingers. If the result of your research is that "You can discredit the flu shot with research from the CDC. ", then I am going to take a wild guess you are not in the first category.

[Guest219794]

And I respect YOUR views, opinion, beliefs. Aren't nurses supposed to respect the autonomy of others? So shouldn't you respect mine?

Respecting an individual's autonomy and respecting their views are completely unrelated. I would hope that you could think of some views and opinions that are simply not worthy of respect.

Your understanding of the science behind a given procedure or medication are absolutely critical in the patient care you will deliver as a Nurse Practitioner. What you understand, or believe, will absolutely effect how your patients will make decisions.

For example- One of the docs in my ER has concerns over the hazards of TPA- more so than the other docs. When he is done explaining the risks/benefits of TPA, a lower percentage of his patients get TPA than with other docs. As it happens, he was ahead of the trend in reducing use of TPA, and most of the others have caught up.

The point is that his research led him down a certain path, and it affect the choices of his patients.

As an NP, you will have huge impact on the decisions of your patients. Your "views" will guide your advice to them.

[RunnerNurse09, BSN, RN]

Respecting an individual's autonomy and respecting their views are completely unrelated. I would hope that you could think of some views and opinions that are simply not worthy of respect.

Your understanding of the science behind a given procedure or medication are absolutely critical in the patient care you will deliver as a Nurse Practitioner. What you understand, or believe, will absolutely effect how your patients will make decisions.

For example- One of the docs in my ER has concerns over the hazards of TPA- more so than the other docs. When he is done explaining the risks/benefits of TPA, a lower percentage of his patients get TPA than with other docs. As it happens, he was ahead of the trend in reducing use of TPA, and most of the others have caught up.

The point is that his research led him down a certain path, and it affect the choices of his patients.

As an NP, you will have huge impact on the decisions of your patients. Your "views" will guide your advice to them.

So then the doctor you refer to is letting his patients make the decision based on risk benefit...isnt that what a provider is supposed to do ethically, isnt that what patient centered care is? When you listen to the drug commercials on television and they list the possible side effects to medications, do you think it makes patients more or less inclined to ask for them? Informed consent is one thing, scare tactics are another. I am not sure which you are speaking.

I never, ever said I thought the flu shot was harmful, and I dont know how words are being twisted.

1) the flu shot can be, and is, beneficial. I personally do not feel it is effective enough based on what the CDC states for me personally to get it UNLESS i am required to do so. THAT is my choice.

2) I would never talk a patient out if getting vaccinated, or any other treatment. If a patient directly asked me the statistics on the flu shot, I would show them the stats from the CDC, and advise them as per the CDC is it highly recommended. Period. I would never advise otherwise unless the recommendations changed.

No doctor or any provider should be hiding information on the risk vs. benefit of a procedure.

[Guest219794]

So then the doctor you refer to is letting his patients make the decision based on risk benefit...isnt that what a provider is supposed to do ethically, isnt that what patient centered care is? When you listen to the drug commercials on television and they list the possible side effects to medications, do you think it makes patients more or less inclined to ask for them? Informed consent is one thing, scare tactics are another. I am not sure which you are speaking.

I never, ever said I thought the flu shot was harmful, and I dont know how words are being twisted.

1) the flu shot can be, and is, beneficial. I personally do not feel it is effective enough based on what the CDC states for me personally to get it UNLESS i am required to do so. THAT is my choice.

2) I would never talk a patient out if getting vaccinated, or any other treatment. If a patient directly asked me the statistics on the flu shot, I would show them the stats from the CDC, and advise them as per the CDC is it highly recommended. Period. I would never advise otherwise unless the recommendations changed.

No doctor or any provider should be hiding information on the risk vs. benefit of a procedure.

"The flu vaccine effectiveness is usually under 50%, and the powers that be push it like its eradicating the flu altogether."

So, would you be showing them that statistic? I would also like to see it, as it is very different from my understanding. I could have it wrong.

I think that the reaction you are getting comes from how you are presenting this. You refer to "the powers that be". Who are these powers? Medical experts?

Or, "Show me the statistics that say the flu vaccine is 100% effective." I don't think anybody claimed this. Or that it is even relevant.

And, your emphasis on the importance of beliefs and opinions is similar to those who don't rely on science.

Oddly, I think you do rely on science. And, I think that your conclusion about your risk/benefit ratio actually makes sense. As to whether it is technically, statistically a correct conclusion I am not sure. But is is certainly not out there as far as the risk/benefit to you personally getting the flu.

From my reading, I determined: Like anything, there is a risk benefit ratio to a flu shot. and that ratio differs by the individual. The risks of the shot seem to be fairly similar, despite demographics. In other words, I am just as likely, (or unlikely) to get guillain barre syndrome as somebody older or not as healthy. So, we have about the same level of risk. But, an older, less healthy individual is far more likely to die from the flu, so gets a greater benefit from X% immunity.

Just because the risk benefit of the flu shot is favorable to the general public, does not mean it is favorable to me. Or you, given your screen name. I actually tried to look for studies that stratified risk benefit by overall health and fitness, but didn't come up with anything. So, you and I appeared to be lumped into the same group as sedentary obese smokers, despite the fact that they have more to gain, and less to lose.

My impression was that I might actually be better off without the flu shot. The chance of me dying from the flu is minute. Possibly less than the chance of guillain barre syndrome. But, more important is this: Symptoms start 1 to 4 days after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick. Some people can be infected with the flu virus but have no symptoms.

As a nurse, it is irresponsible for me to not reduce the chance of infecting others. I got the flu a few years ago. Left in the middle of my third shift in a row after measuring a fever. I could have infected patients before leaving, or on earlier shifts. But, at least I had done due diligence in reducing those odds.

[RunnerNurse09, BSN, RN]

As a nurse, it is irresponsible for me to not reduce the chance of infecting others. I got the flu a few years ago. Left in the middle of my third shift in a row after measuring a fever. I could have infected patients before leaving, or on earlier shifts. But, at least I had done due diligence in reducing those odds.

Agreed

[Daisy Joyce]

Yes--when HCPs speak in a condescending or dismissive way to patients, it only gets their back up.

I'm no anti-vaxxer, but I am anti-treating the patient like an idiot because they express a fear or a doubt or see the world differently than you.

And don't forget, lots of things that are no longer done were considered good medicine once. I started my nursing career when side rails and restraints were responsible nursing care, and a baby was ALWAYS out to sleep on his tummy.

So, things change, and the average patient doesn't have access to the studies and rationales of why they changed. So, their takeaway is "doctors don't know everything".

And a lot of them are scared. Autism is a devastating disease.

So, it's our job to share the information with them, not browbeat them, not condescend (which, BTW, won't make them suddenly meek and agreeable -- it's will only make them angry, reinforce the idea of patriarchal medicine, and NOT get their kid vaccinated).

People skills.

[GM2RN]

I don't know about conspiracy theory, but many are highly uneducated and paranoid about science and pride themselves on being "all-natural."

And if you talk to most elderly people who actually lived through polio and other illnesses that have been eradicated by vaccines, they will say that immunizations are God-sent. These young people haven't got a clue how fortunate they are to live in today's times instead of the thirties.

I'm sure FDR would agree.

"Highly uneducated and paranoid," hmmm!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you have no idea how educated your so-called "anti-vaxxers" are. But lets say for discussions sake that some--not many--are not as well educated as you. How do you account for the many nurses, doctors, scientists, and other very highly educated people--many that are more educated than those on this board--that refuse to vaccinate their children/families and stand somewhere on the side of the fence as the "anti-vaxxers?"

[GM2RN]

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

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.

If the connection between autism and vaccines has been so thoroughly debunked, why does the vaccine court award to some with autism due to vaccine injury? And that's not to say that all autism is caused by vaccine injury because it's not, but some certainly is.

[GM2RN]

And YES, I'm pushing the issue because it's very personal to me. If Gardasil existed 30 years ago, I WOULD STILL HAVE A UTERUS.

Not necessarily true. Gardasil doesn't even claim to protect against all viruses that can cause cervical cancer.