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?
I have to agree with Rocknurse about freedom of choice related to vaccines. I don't understand why pro-vaccers are so militant - I have heard people say that anti vaccers should be sterilised, their children taken away, have the parents thrown in jail - why? It just does not seem logical.
Here is the argument I have gotten. Perhaps you can enlighten me. An unvaccinated child contracts, say chickenpox, but goes to school before diagnosis. According to my classmates, that child is a danger to their classmates who were previously vaccinated. Why? Should not their vaccination give them immunity from chickenpox? Logically, it will affect the child, but only pass on minor effects, if any to the previously vaccinated children. Yet people I know say, "the should call defax, parents arrested, waivers made of no value," and other such things. Why?
I know that there are some vaccines that have helped humanity, but the majority that are pushed today, I simply cannot agree to. If I had to move out of country to raise my children normally without getting arrested for "negligence", or other such nonsense, then so be it.
Also, just to bite, anti vaccers are not anti-science. We look at research studies that are just not popular because they might change people's minds about the medical system. Don't get upset, its fun to debate!
BTW, I have not actually seen this film, I am just posting about vaccines in general.
Don't you think that someone who actually dares to question the status quo and do "unpopular" research might actually be showing signs of a working mind, meaning that they are not just accepting what is handed to them?
When the relatively small band of Patriots dared to challenge and revolt against Britain in 1776, they were considered crazy by other countries, yet they won their freedom. What has happened to our American spirit of independence that now anyone who questions the norm is considered "insane"?
What happened in 1976 with GBS and the swine flu vaccine?In 1976 there was a small increased risk of GBS following vaccination with an influenza vaccine made to protect against a swine flu virus. The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Scientists have multiple theories on why this increased risk may have occurred, but the exact reason for this association remains unknown.
The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with influenza, and vaccination is the best way to prevent influenza infection and its complications
To answer the second half of your question, what should the health care workers response be?
For some reason the non-compliance with standard vaccination recommendations pushes emotional buttons in health care workers like no other. The average American parent and/or adult citizen has many harmful habits that threaten their health. Sugar consumption, obesity, drinking, even tobacco use doesn't seem to bring out mobs with torches like the vaccine issue.
I personally know some activax folks, they are all highly health conscious people. They feel as if they are a minority whose rights of self determination for themselves and their families is threatened. Therefore, some of them are going underground and avoiding the medical establishment entirely.
I don't think this is optimal. Do we do this to people with poor food choices? No, probably because many of us also are addicted to sugar and junk food.
I think we need to nurture relationships of trust with all patients, even those whose choices differ from ours. Healthcare should have an open door policy to all. We need to always compromise ourselves to the patient's philosophical outlook, just like be do with cultural differences.
Obviously when I'm discussing this with family members or patients, I'm respectful.
But here on AN, we can come to vent about how frustrating it is to show people the science behind the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and get nowhere. Also, to vent about being advised that using bleach enemas will cure autism and essential oils will cure cancer and on and on.
Andrew Wakefield's so-called study was debunked and he was stripped of his license. He should have NO credibility.
I believe as nurses, and part of the medical community, we need to stop calling those who don't agree with vaccination as "insane" or "crazy". I've personally cared for people who have had Guillain-Barre after a flu vaccine, and I understand why questions are arising on safety and efficacy. It isn't "crazy" or "insane" to question the safety of something that the government and big Pharma have their hands in. Parents want to do what is best for their children, and though I'm not a parent, I fully comprehend the nervousness and concern. I'm not on either side of the debate, because I believe everyone should make their own decisions, but we need to stop judging everyone else's medical decisions and name calling when we don't agree.
My oldest son's new wife is carrying my soon to be born first grandchild. She has other children, including one that is profoundly developmentally disabled. They think it was the results of a vaccine reaction. I'm not sure what her stance is now on vaccination, but I'll support her in any decision she makes.
I believe as nurses, and part of the medical community, we need to stop calling those who don't agree with vaccination as "insane" or "crazy". I've personally cared for people who have had Guillain-Barre after a flu vaccine, and I understand why questions are arising on safety and efficacy. It isn't "crazy" or "insane" to question the safety of something that the government and big Pharma have their hands in. Parents want to do what is best for their children, and though I'm not a parent, I fully comprehend the nervousness and concern. I'm not on either side of the debate, because I believe everyone should make their own decisions, but we need to stop judging everyone else's medical decisions and name calling when we don't agree.
Hah. If you look at the OP'S YouTube link to the vaxxed trailer, all the commenters are calling conspiracy on the low view count the video has gotten. More woo-wooism.
Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).
I feel for parents whose child is diagnosed with autism, it must be confusing and very upsetting to hear this diagnosis. I wonder if when they are grasping for understanding, if it is easier for some parents to believe that their child's autism is related to vaccines, rather than their own advanced paternal/maternal age.
Actually the idea that advanced maternal/paternal age as a causal factor in autism has been largely debunked as well. As the research has gained traction we see that incidence of autism is I pretty evenly spaced across the population. Still how do we account the increase in the number of diagnoses. I am interested in this subject because I am married to a person with high functioning austism or HFA which is what the DSM is calling Asprger's these days. He' a great guy but odd as he to most people , even myself after 17 years. Perhaps we are just getting better at detecting Autism and the focus should be on programs to help the afflicted.
In this day and age, one can determine their fertility levels...a 42 year old can be healthy fertility wise as a 22 year old and vice versa.
Autism determination ratio is determined by genetic testing.
If the parents opt for elective abortion because of positive genetic test results for autism but the reason for the abortion is not tracked. The data collected on incidence of autism in older parents becomes skewed.
If the parents opt for elective abortion because of positive genetic test results for autism but the reason for the abortion is not tracked. The data collected on incidence of autism in older parents becomes skewed.
Last time I checked, there was no test for autism that could pre-determine whether a child was affected in utero. There is no blood test for autism.
I work in the field and have a child with autism. Autism testing is done through multi-factored observation and testing. There is the ADOS and the GARS.
We usually don't test kids or diagnose them until around age 2. A few might be tested earlier, but it is not the norm.
And yes, my child is fully vaccinated, would be again, and no, I don't think my child has autism because of vaccines.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
Parakeet
144 Posts
I have to agree with Rocknurse about freedom of choice related to vaccines. I don't understand why pro-vaccers are so militant - I have heard people say that anti vaccers should be sterilised, their children taken away, have the parents thrown in jail - why? It just does not seem logical.
Here is the argument I have gotten. Perhaps you can enlighten me. An unvaccinated child contracts, say chickenpox, but goes to school before diagnosis. According to my classmates, that child is a danger to their classmates who were previously vaccinated. Why? Should not their vaccination give them immunity from chickenpox? Logically, it will affect the child, but only pass on minor effects, if any to the previously vaccinated children. Yet people I know say, "the should call defax, parents arrested, waivers made of no value," and other such things. Why?
I know that there are some vaccines that have helped humanity, but the majority that are pushed today, I simply cannot agree to. If I had to move out of country to raise my children normally without getting arrested for "negligence", or other such nonsense, then so be it.
Also, just to bite, anti vaccers are not anti-science. We look at research studies that are just not popular because they might change people's minds about the medical system. Don't get upset, its fun to debate!