At first I wasn't going to write this post since I believe that a film that appears to be (at least in part) based on thoroughly discredited, fear-mongering nonsense should get as little attention as possible.
Then after browsing several anti-vaccine and conspiracist websites I found as I suspected, that this has already exploded and whatever I write here won't make matters any worse.
The film 'Vaxxed' is directed by Mr Andrew Wakefield, a former physician who lost his medical license after research that he had authored, was found fraudulent (containing as I understand it, both methodological and ethical flaws).
Just watching the trailer for this film elevated my BP into dangerous territory. How is it that this man keeps promoting the same debunked data to this day? Hasn't it caused enough harm already?
It seems that anti-vaccine proponents span the entire spectrum from sadly misinformed to clearly unhinged. However, no matter what their individual motivation happens to be, they are in my opinion dangerous. We have fought a hard battle against diseases that today are vaccine-preventable. Millions of children have died in the past and some still do, to this day. We don't see much of it in first-world countries due to the success of vaccines. Anti-vaccine proponents seem to believe that the "olden days" were better. I think it's deeply worrisome.
In my escapades around the internet, I've found all sorts of scary blogs, clips and opinions relating to childhood vaccines.
This YouTube clip rather amusingly (in a sad way) has 90 likes and zero (!) dislikes (probably because no rational person would even click on it in the first place). (I'm not sure what this says about me)
Anyway this women thinks that nagalese (an enzyme) is added on purpose to vaccines in order to induce autism, cancer and type 2 diabetes in vaccine recipients. And the doctors who discovered this were subsequently murdered to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
(It seems that alpha-N-acetylgalactoseaminidase (referred to as nagalese in the YouTube clip) can deglycosylate vitamin D binding protein (DBP) and DBP plays a role in the immune cascade response. So it seems that alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase can interfere with the immune response. While some cancer cells can release alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase, I've found no proof that injecting them into humans induces cancers, never mind autism and DMII. I will however admit that I didn't spend an inordinate amount of time researching her theory).
I admit that this last video is a bit extreme. But this woman and other "anti-vaxxers" have one thing on common. They are willing to accept something as true, even when there is no supporting evidence available.
Serious questions:
* Why are some people so vulnerable/susceptible to flawed logic and poor research?
* What can we as nurses/healthcare professionals do to ensure that our patients base their decisions on sound evidence-based facts or at least have the opportunity to do so? Or should we just reconcile ourselves with the fact that a portion of the population will base their decisions on questionable or outright false information, misconceptions and fear?
Rocknurse, you rock! Methinks the CDC doth protest too much. Let's hear from the "lead scientist" from the CDC--now a "whistleblower", named Dr. William Thompson, phD, who wants to testify before Congress, as to the destruction by the CDC, of important data, that indeed showed a connection between AUTISM and some vaccine ingredients. I wonder what the holdup is--could it be some vaccine manufacturers would prefer to NOT have any evidence of vaccine adverse side effects shared with the public? Hmmm. I wonder why BILLIONS of dollars have been paid to families of VACCINE INJURED OR KILLED children, by the Vaccine Court??? Just sayin'....
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!
No one is saying that vaccines do not have side effects or adverse effects. Nothing is 100% safe, not even so-called natural remedies. You should know that, being in an advanced degree program. However, vaccines are safe for the overwhelming majority of the population and have played the key role in reducing or eradicating diseases that have killed or injured millions over the years. Risk vs. benefit..do you know how to interpret that?
Rocknurse, you rock! Methinks the CDC doth protest too much. Let's hear from the "lead scientist" from the CDC--now a "whistleblower", named Dr. William Thompson, phD, who wants to testify before Congress, as to the destruction by the CDC, of important data, that indeed showed a connection between AUTISM and some vaccine ingredients. I wonder what the holdup is--could it be some vaccine manufacturers would prefer to NOT have any evidence of vaccine adverse side effects shared with the public? Hmmm. I wonder why BILLIONS of dollars have been paid to families of VACCINE INJURED OR KILLED children, by the Vaccine Court??? Just sayin'....
:banghead: I have a suggestion for you. If you would like to see the reported adverse reactions that have been reported by the CDC, look at BostonFNP's previous posts in this thread. No one is hiding ANYTHING. Conspiracies Big Brother . I mean Come on people!! Our government is not smart enough to hide anything!
*BIG sigh*
I have now stated numerous times, again in this thread, that I believe in citizen's rights. You have the right to do whatever you want to yourself until it affects another person. It can be debated that it means you don't have the right to choose for the child, but personally, until they are 18, you should be able to.
What you DON'T have the right to do, is kill my infant, because YOU did not immunize YOUR child.
No one is saying that vaccines do not have side effects or adverse effects. Nothing is 100% safe, not even so-called natural remedies. You should know that, being in an advanced degree program. However, vaccines are safe for the overwhelming majority of the population and have played the key role in reducing or eradicating diseases that have killed or injured millions over the years. Risk vs. benefit..do you know how to interpret that?
I never denied that there weren't benefits. Of course I know how to differentiate risk vs benefit. Don't talk down to me as if I'm 6. So you ARE saying there's a risk? So why is everybody arguing? If you're agreeing there's a risk then surely that means people are entitled to concern and caution? It seems as if the pro-vaxxers are the ones manipulating the conversation to suit themselves. I think it's safe to say, that if there is a proven risk, and some people are concerned, that they have a valid point and are entitled to their opinion without being deemed unhinged, insane, histrionic, or the variety of names they've been called on this thread. There are a multitude of variations, shades and unknowns in the vaccination discussion, but I get really mad when people aren't allowed their say and are unable to have a cordial, high-brow debate without resorting to ridicule and name-calling. This thread is why nurses can't have nice things.
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!
Yes, it's true that some people have developed Guillian Barre syndrome after receiving the flu vaccine. People who haven't received the flu vaccine also develop GBS, at about the same rate that vaccinated people do. And people develop GBS after having theflu at a higher rate that the vaccinated individuals. Our country has a v. strict policy about what has to be considered an "adverse effect" of any medication.
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!
Oh, good gracious. Is this where it goes? I'm interpreting this as, "well, ain't got no evidence-based research studies to back my claims up but y'all know what? Research isn't proof anyway and you guys can't interpret all these evidence-based studies you keep bringing to the table anyway!"
Then stomping your feet, flipping your hair, and leaving in a huff.
As someone who is "table thumping" research, I know very well how to interpret a research study. I'm interested to see what you are seeing -- can you post an example, please?
I lost track of the post but someone mentioned letting a child develop natural immunity. The optional vaccines aside, who would consider attempting to leave their child to develop an immunity to say tetorifice? Who here suggested such a thing?
I never denied that there weren't benefits. Of course I know how to differentiate risk vs benefit. Don't talk down to me as if I'm 6. So you ARE saying there's a risk? So why is everybody arguing? If you're agreeing there's a risk then surely that means people are entitled to concern and caution? It seems as if the pro-vaxxers are the ones manipulating the conversation to suit themselves. I think it's safe to say, that if there is a proven risk, and some people are concerned, that they have a valid point and are entitled to their opinion without being deemed unhinged, insane, histrionic, or the variety of names they've been called on this thread. There are a multitude of variations, shades and unknowns in the vaccination discussion, but I get really mad when people aren't allowed their say and are unable to have a cordial, high-brow debate without resorting to ridicule and name-calling. This thread is why nurses can't have nice things.
Ummm, Rock?
Actually, we have had that discussion of risks vs. benefits about 200 posts ago. I, myself, posted that there are risks to taking vaccinations, but according to the WHO, the benefits far outweigh the risks. It was also discussed, mainly by BostonFNP, with studies, about the missing papers at the CDC, which if I remember correctly, were thrown out because the subjects did not have birth certificates, so they could not be vetted for the study.
Since then, we have been attacked that we, as nurses, allow big pharm to push its agenda, because we are making mad amounts of money. I blame this solely for someone putting this on FB. But since it has degraded, I figured I would still try to help educate some people by going to their standards. I have read ALL the posts, and have not seen anyone doing any name-calling.
I lost track of the post but someone mentioned letting a child develop natural immunity. The optional vaccines aside, who would consider attempting to their child develop an immunity to say tetorifice? Who here suggested such a thing?
It was around post #120 or something. I am too tired to look. And I need to find some Tylenol, from banging my head all night :)
When did I ever mention a conspiracy? Don't paint me with a tainted brush. Another example of a poor response to someone with a differing opinion. Do people not know how to debate anymore?
If you want to "debate," please provide some legitimate support (research results) for your opinions and beliefs other than anecdotal reports of what you have personally witnessed. As the old saying goes, "the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data'."
When did I ever mention a conspiracy? Don't paint me with a tainted brush. Another example of a poor response to someone with a differing opinion. Do people not know how to debate anymore?
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!
It's interesting how when anyone brings up the Guillain Barre argument as an anti vaxx meme, they CONVENIENTLY omit the following:
Yes, it's true that some people have developed Guillian Barre syndrome after receiving the flu vaccine. People who haven't received the flu vaccine also develop GBS, at about the same rate that vaccinated people do. And people develop GBS after having theflu at a higher rate that the vaccinated individuals.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
:banghead:
.thumb.jpg.de0b1803a7b639db80953e3a326388a1.jpg){kind=small}
Rocknurse, MSN, APRN, NP
1,367 Posts
Just yesterday, in my pharmacology class in the acute NP program of my very prestigious school, we were told that an adverse effect of the flu vaccine is Guillian Barre syndrome. This isn't hearsay, it's not rumor, it's verified, cited and taught at one of the top programs in the country. I was actually sitting there in the classroom not 24 hours ago. I've watched people struggle to breathe, be intubated and end up in renal failure and on dialysis because of the flu vaccine. People can say and ridicule all they want...fact is fact. If you know anything about research, you'll know that just because some data was omitted or a specific protocol was not followed, it doesn't actually negate the data. It just means it either skews the distribution curve or creates outliers. Research is not necessarily absolute proof. Most research is suggestive and conclusions have to be drawn from several studies in a meta-analysis. These people who are table thumping about "research" most likely don't even know how to interpret a research study in the first place!