"A growing number of children aren't getting required vaccinations for non-medical reasons. What will this new reality bring this school year?
As parents send their children back to school, some are grappling with a new worry: whether their children's classmates have received all their vaccinations.
An outbreak of measles in Texas this week shows why their concern is not without reason. Twenty-one people linked to a megachurch and its congregation have contracted the highly contagious disease, and the case has put a spotlight on falling vaccination rates in the U.S.
Measles was eradicated in the U.S. as of 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but outbreaks like the one in Texas are increasing, as is the percentage of parents choosing not to immunize their children, which has seen an uptick in recent years. Usually, the CDC expects to see 60 cases of measles per year, but there have been 135 cases of measles so far in 2013, and in 2011, more than 220 people were diagnosed with the disease.
This latest outbreak follows a rash of recent measles cases among New York's Orthodox Jewish population and an outbreak in San Diego in 2008."
Also, before one starts quoting people who are supposed experts you need to look at their credentials. How are they an expert? Have they ever done any scientific studies on vaccines? Have they ever published to a peer-reviewed journal? Do their financial interests rely heavily on anti-vaccine propoganda ie. Are they making a significant portion of their income off book deals, blogs, speaking engagements about being anti-vaccine?
No I didn't. Is it true you can be trained in one area but have a passion for another? Just because her techincal title isn't someone soley dedicated to vaccines that means she cares less about what she researches? I was under the impression the anti vax people aren't for profit at all. It's the pro vax people that do it for profit. Do you ever wonder if all these peer reviewed people are taught to agree on the same thing? What if they aren't being objective but just repeating what they're taught in medical school. This is what one of the doctors said. "No vaccines are safe. Having “efficacy” means an antibody response is generated, not that they keep you from getting sick. There are many other ways to keep children healthy other than injecting them with disease matter, chemicals, animal DNA, animal proteins, detergents and surfactants that inflame and weaken the blood brain barrier, potentially causing inflammation and other problems.
Do you know how much doctors learn about vaccines in medical school? When we participate in pediatrics training, we learn that vaccines need to be given on schedule. We learn that smallpox and polio were eliminated by vaccines. We learn that there’s no need to know how to treat diphtheria, because we won’t see it again anyway. We are indoctrinated with the mantra that “vaccines are safe and effective” – neither of which is true.
Doctors today are given extensive training on how to talk to “hesitant” parents – how to frighten them by vastly inflating the risks during natural infection. They are trained on the necessity of twisting parents’ arms to conform, or fire them from their practices. Doctors are trained that NOTHING bad should be said about any vaccine, period.
Historically it has been commonplace, since the times of the deadly smallpox vaccines – to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition to mass vaccination policies. This is politics, plain and simple, in the environment of cronyism and corporatism that has invaded the supposed health-care industry."
No I didn't. Is it true you can be trained in one area but have a passion for another? Just because her techincal title isn't someone soley dedicated to vaccines that means she cares less about what she researches? I was under the impression the anti vax people aren't for profit at all. It's the pro vax people that do it for profit. Do you ever wonder if all these peer reviewed people are taught to agree on the same thing? What if they aren't being objective but just repeating what they're taught in medical school. This is what one of the doctors said. "No vaccines are safe. Having “efficacy” means an antibody response is generated, not that they keep you from getting sick. There are many other ways to keep children healthy other than injecting them with disease matter, chemicals, animal DNA, animal proteins, detergents and surfactants that inflame and weaken the blood brain barrier, potentially causing inflammation and other problems.
Do you know how much doctors learn about vaccines in medical school? When we participate in pediatrics training, we learn that vaccines need to be given on schedule. We learn that smallpox and polio were eliminated by vaccines. We learn that there’s no need to know how to treat diphtheria, because we won’t see it again anyway. We are indoctrinated with the mantra that “vaccines are safe and effective” – neither of which is true.
Doctors today are given extensive training on how to talk to “hesitant” parents – how to frighten them by vastly inflating the risks during natural infection. They are trained on the necessity of twisting parents’ arms to conform, or fire them from their practices. Doctors are trained that NOTHING bad should be said about any vaccine, period.
Historically it has been commonplace, since the times of the deadly smallpox vaccines – to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition to mass vaccination policies. This is politics, plain and simple, in the environment of cronyism and corporatism that has invaded the supposed health-care industry."
1. In order for your conspiracy theory to work every healthcare worker in the world would have to be in on the conspiracy. We're not so I guess no conspiracy.
2. Where is this giant amount of money that you and other anti-vaccine people seem to think there is? There is very little money to be made from the generic "childhood" vaccines.
3. Who really is making their livelihood off of vaccines is several of these anti-vaccine "experts" that base their whole practice in naturalistic medicine/homeopathy off their anti-vaccine stance, if they didn't have this conspiracy theory to stick to then they would be out a lot of money.
4. You have absolutely no retort that small pox has been eliminated and polio has been eliminated in most 1st world countries as have most "childhood" diseases. Why do you think we almost never see epiglottitis, MMR, tetorifice, polio, or any of several disease or their complications in this country? These are all mostly viruses so it cannot be d/t the advent of antibiotics.
5. You complain that every heathcare worker and practically every medical researcher in the world is in on some giant conspiracy theory, but yet all you can do is provide useless rhetoric about disproven vaccine myths. You have yet to provide any peer-reviewed scholars articles of any type to prove in any way that routine vaccination should not be used. FYI: As someone already pointed out it is highly insulting that we as healthcare professionals would ever knowingly cause harm to our patients by direct or indirect actions.
6. Physicians, nurses and wannabe nurses are taught using peer-reviewed scientific literature that overall vaccines are safe, if and when you can provide something other than opinion we would all like to hear it. You still cannot provide any proof at all that vaccines are not safe.
7. Actually, there isn't any politics or corporatism to silence anyone about the possible dangers of vaccines, if that had any hint of being true in this county the VAERS system would not be here or open to people to review for statistical retrospective review.
Please provide peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up your libelous claims against vaccines.
Okay, here is some info about all these "non-profit" anti-vaccine proponents.
1. Suzanne Humphries, MD
"Consults" through her blog website and payment can be made through paypal. The catch is that all of her services are contrary to any proven medical theory and so are the lab services she offers.... I am glad to see that she is doing all her work from an altruistic nature and there could be no hint of profit involved from advocating non-proven medical theories. It doesn't matter that most of the techniques she prescribes can actually be dangerous.
2. Viera Scheibner PhD.
Trained as a micropaleonotogist with a PhD in naturalistic sciences from the 1950's. She has two books about anti-vaccines and along with her late husband holds a patent for a crib monitoring system against SIDS. She also does speaking engagements about anti-vaccination. No possible profit motive here at all....
3. Hilary Butler (no formal education?) but she does have three books you can buy for a small donation...
4. Kelly Brogan MD, a holistic health psychiatrist who specializes in women's health reproduction... Again makes her living off her alternate views..
These are the 4 article authors I found from the link ratlady provided. There seems to be a lot of money to be made for articulate anti-vaccination proponents.
Measles rates jumped from 40 to 13,000 in the Ukraine d/t poor vaccination rates.
"Ukraine doesn't mandate vaccination, but encourages it by requiring children to show certification of vaccination to be admitted to public schools. However, many parents who refuse to vaccinate arrange for fake certificates.
Widespread fears about vaccines prompted the government to cancel a U.N.-backed measles vaccination campaign in 2009 and the number of measles cases skyrocketed from about 40 in 2010 to 13,000 last year, including one lethal case, according to the Health Ministry."
I was under the impression the anti vax people aren't for profit at all. It's the pro vax people that do it for profit.
We are indoctrinated with the mantra that “vaccines are safe and effective” – neither of which is true.
They don't sell vaccines. They sell expensive alternative therapies. These alternative therapies have not been approved by the FDA, have not done extensive RCTs, are not controlled for consistency, and are bought with cash or credit.
Where is a publication showing that safe and effective is not true?
Specializes in ED, Cardiac-step down, tele, med surg.
I met another nurse at my work who had an adverse reaction to a vaccine and now has to take expensive steroid shots. I don't know if it was the hep b or what, but each shot is like 5000 bucks. Luckily she has insurance for it; but they don't cover everything. She also has to take prednisone everyday, nasty side effects. I'm not pro or anti vaccines. I do think that people have a right to say what goes into their body and have to look at the risk/benefit profile, also the likelyhood of contracting and spreading the illness. For me, it made sense to get the hep B and varicella, since getting a needle stick might happen. I've also never had chicken pox, so that made sense. The flu shot on the other hand doesn't make sense to me, for me to get it. I have rarely gotten the flu ever. My immune system is like a rock. And if I'm around a patient that is coughing I wear a mask, sometimes I'll put on the N95, because you never know they might have TB. Hand washing, hand washing, hand washing (the best way to prevent catching a nasty virus). As for flu shots, I usually always decline, unless it's mandated, then if it is, I go for the attenuated virus (the pure virus and no additives). I don't care what the studies say, common sense indicates to me to not inject chemicals into my body if there is no need to. There are risks in vaccines (the case in point above). Additionally flu shots are not very effective at preventing flu, especially in healthy populations. You can research that fact on your own.
If the reaction was caused by a vaccine then that is what the VAERS system is for and your coworker is entitled to compensation.
Whether you exhibit signs of the flu or not, as has been stated and shown through research, you can still be a carrier of influenza making you a danger to your patients and coworkers. I have posted one link to an article that showed lower mortality rates in facilities that had higher flu vaccination rates among their healthcare workers.
Actually, the flu vaccine works best in healthy adults with rates as high as 83% and the lowest rates in the elderly.
"Asymptomatic carriers play an important role. As many as half of all infections with normal seasonal flu may be asymptomatic, which in part may be due to preexisting partial immunity.1Asymptomatic patients shed virus and can transmit the disease but not at the same rate as symptomatic individuals, thus creating an invisible “reservoir” for the virus. The implication of this is that public health disease containment measures and infection control measures alone may slow but cannot stop a flu epidemic."
They don't sell vaccines. They sell expensive alternative therapies. These alternative therapies have not been approved by the FDA, have not done extensive RCTs, are not controlled for consistency, and are bought with cash or credit.
Where is a publication showing that safe and effective is not true?
I looked at the VAERS website data for 2012. I read the disclaimer stating that "It can't be proven that these were 100% from the vaccine" But that's like saying they can't prove Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid. It doesn't mean anything to me. I look at the data, a few hours later a reaction occurs, more than the "normal" or "typical" reaction. I had to stop reading because it made me sick. That is how I know they aren't safe. That is how I know they aren't as effective as everyone thinks they are. You have made me look more critically at the "reputable" data, and after viewing it I still feel the same. The US is way over vaccinated. The choices for vaccines are being ripped away with combo vaccines and mandated vaccinations. Neither of which I support. Vax if you want. But don't judge others who don't.
Also, how does the VAERS system go about deciding which adverse reaction was caused by the vaccine or not? What type of method or technology do they use?
I looked at the VAERS website data for 2012. I read the disclaimer stating that "It can't be proven that these were 100% from the vaccine" But that's like saying they can't prove Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid. It doesn't mean anything to me. I look at the data, a few hours later a reaction occurs, more than the "normal" or "typical" reaction. I had to stop reading because it made me sick. That is how I know they aren't safe. That is how I know they aren't as effective as everyone thinks they are. You have made me look more critically at the "reputable" data, and after viewing it I still feel the same. The US is way over vaccinated. The choices for vaccines are being ripped away with combo vaccines and mandated vaccinations. Neither of which I support. Vax if you want. But don't judge others who don't.
Also, how does the VAERS system go about deciding which adverse reaction was caused by the vaccine or not? What type of method or technology do they use?
I had to laugh at this and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but when you actually start taking care of patients you will understand how laughable this is. For example: I had a patient one time that had three stated allergies (morphine, aspirin, nitroglycerin). Morphine lowered her BP, aspirin upset her stomach, and the nitro gave her a headache. The point being patients report all sorts of things but it often has no true relation or are just normal side-effects. There is a reason that researchers go through the VAERS and do retrospective studies trying to determine if there is an increased danger. Vaccines undergo the largest phase 4 trials of any medication.
But again if you have any peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports vaccines are not safe for widespread use we would like to see it.
FYI: The way you determine how researchers conduct the experiment or find information such as from the VAERS system is to look at the methodology section of the article. This is another reason why it is important to look at peer-reviewed literature.
wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA
5,128 Posts
Also, before one starts quoting people who are supposed experts you need to look at their credentials. How are they an expert? Have they ever done any scientific studies on vaccines? Have they ever published to a peer-reviewed journal? Do their financial interests rely heavily on anti-vaccine propoganda ie. Are they making a significant portion of their income off book deals, blogs, speaking engagements about being anti-vaccine?