Without stating the source (aka natural news) is invalid or otherwise picking on the source, how would you take a pro vaccination stance against this type of article? How would you educate those around you who read these types of articles that DTaP (I just got mine a few months ago) is a helpful vaccination?
How would you deal with the articles references to the FDA stating that people who have been vaccinated (including recent vaccinations) can become a carrier and spread the disease?
Also from a pro vaccination standpoint, if acellular type vaccinations are not as effective, which ones (still provided today) are more effective? If we had an acellular vaccination in the recent past 12 months, would you recommend getting a more effective type?
There have been plenty of good studies already. The people who still aren't convinced are just not interested in what legitimate science has to say. It's not that there just haven't been enough studies yet; the problem is that they are unable or unwilling to distinguish between legitimate science and blatant quackery.
I'm age 51. While I received various vaccinations as a child, for the RN program I'm starting I needed to get a variety of vaccinations including ones I did not have (or remember having) as a child.
They should do a study on children with autism whose parents are anti-vaccine, the child did not get any, and still are autistic.
Already done....sorta. The study did not question the opinions of the parents, just whether the children in the study DID get the MMR or or did NOT get the MMR, and found a slightly elevated rate (statistically insignificant, but still noted) of autism among the NON-VACCINATED children.
Yes, you read that correctly.
It's a very well-received, well-documented and thoroughly NON-debunked study done in Denmark. Socialized medicine there allowed a study of a HUGE population of children --is half a million enough for everyone? And essentially it documented that whether or not a child received the recommended series of vaccinations, the kids were autistic at the same rate. And for those who were still too thick to see this, it WAS indicated that those who did not get the vaccines had a rate that was a teensy bit higher than those who did. Obviously the point was NOT to suggest that NOT getting vaccines caused autism (seriously, this had to be explained to people) it just showed zero causation for the vaccines and autism. It even gave the conspiracy theorists pause.
But pause was all. People have their own agendas regardless of fact. Propaganda history tells us that if you repeat something enough times, people do believe it to be true, regardless of validity.
Already done....sorta. The study did not question the opinions of the parents, just whether the children in the study DID get the MMR or or did NOT get the MMR, and found a slightly elevated rate (statistically insignificant, but still noted) of autism among the NON-VACCINATED children.
Yes, you read that correctly.
It's a very well-received, well-documented and thoroughly NON-debunked study done in Denmark. Socialized medicine there allowed a study of a HUGE population of children --is half a million enough for everyone? And essentially it documented that whether or not a child received the recommended series of vaccinations, the kids were autistic at the same rate. And for those who were still too thick to see this, it WAS indicated that those who did not get the vaccines had a rate that was a teensy bit higher than those who did. Obviously the point was NOT to suggest that NOT getting vaccines caused autism (seriously, this had to be explained to people) it just showed zero causation for the vaccines and autism. It even gave the conspiracy theorists pause.
But pause was all. People have their own agendas regardless of fact. Propaganda history tells us that if you repeat something enough times, people do believe it to be true, regardless of validity.
OP, the reason you will receive such a lukewarm reaction to your link (as well as to other questionable sources) isn’t because people have other opinions than the ones presented in your links. It’s because they are of dubious or rather non-existing scientific quality. Let me repeat this in a different way. We don’t reject this source because we disagree with the content, we reject it because we can deduce that their claims have no scientific foundation whatsoever.
Nurses are taught about the scientific process, we are supposed to practice evidence-based medicine (and nursing). We have to critically think about information presented to us, actively search for sources and understand how to interpret scientific studies.
I worked for years in an environment where I was responsible for immunization practice. Parents who were convinced that vaccines were evil were not going to "hear" anything that I said. So I gave them the canned printed info, acknowledged and documented their objections and moved on without any further discussion or effort.
I read the info in the link, and the bolded parts (my bolding) surprised me:
RESULTS: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects.
Some of this just doesn't make sense to me! Bolding #1:Explaining there was no link between autism and the MMR decreased misperceptions but STILL resulted in a decreased incidence of vaccination. IOW, they accepted it didn't cause autism....but still wouldn't vaccinate.
And then bolding #2: Showing pictures of children who HAD Measles, Mumps or Rubella (something preventable with vaccination) somehow made the surveyed parents believe in an AUTISM link? DIDN'T get the shot (got sick instead) and they believe more assuredly in an autism link (even though they were NOT looking at autistic kids)?
And finally, bolding #3: being presented with the dangers of NOT vaccinating increased their belief in vaccine side effects. By learning about a kid who did NOT get the vaccine.
I swear, people really ARE idiots. There oughtta be a test to determine fitness for parenthood, and it would involve the ability to comprehend basic information on how to keep your kid safe, and what happens when you don't.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
I read the info in the link, and the bolded parts (my bolding) surprised me:
RESULTS: None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects.
Some of this just doesn't make sense to me! Bolding #1:Explaining there was no link between autism and the MMR decreased misperceptions but STILL resulted in a decreased incidence of vaccination. IOW, they accepted it didn't cause autism....but still wouldn't vaccinate.
And then bolding #2: Showing pictures of children who HAD Measles, Mumps or Rubella (something preventable with vaccination) somehow made the surveyed parents believe in an AUTISM link? DIDN'T get the shot (got sick instead) and they believe more assuredly in an autism link (even though they were NOT looking at autistic kids)?
And finally, bolding #3: being presented with the dangers of NOT vaccinating increased their belief in vaccine side effects. By learning about a kid who did NOT get the vaccine.
I swear, people really ARE idiots. There oughtta be a test to determine fitness for parenthood, and it would involve the ability to comprehend basic information on how to keep your kid safe, and what happens when you don't.
I recently read an article about zealots and how they don't change their views after being exposed to facts, rather they "double down" when confronted with factual information that conflicts with their perceptions and beliefs. It is an interesting phenomenon that we see played out in the political arena here in America every day.
elkpark
14,633 Posts
There have been plenty of good studies already. The people who still aren't convinced are just not interested in what legitimate science has to say. It's not that there just haven't been enough studies yet; the problem is that they are unable or unwilling to distinguish between legitimate science and blatant quackery.