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?
There are thimerosal-free versions of all childhood vaccines; most have never had it to begin with.
SafeMinds and spent a lot of money to research thimerosal after complaining that here was a "lack of well-designed statistical research". The result was this readily available study:
Gadad, B. S., Li, W., Yazdani, U., Grady, S., Johnson, T., Hammond, J., ... & Ferrier, C. (2015). Administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines to infant rhesus macaques does not result in autism-like behavior or neuropathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(40), 12498-12503.
Your original quote was:
"Just so everyone is clear, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines in the US in 2001. Autism rates haven't dropped since then have they?"
It was NOT removed from ALL vaccines, some still contain it, even it trace amounts.
These are the very reasons that the anti-vax crowd do NOT trust healthcare providers. If you make an incorrect statement like this, why should anyone trust anything else that you say.
"Just so everyone is clear, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines in the US in 2001. Autism rates haven't dropped since then have they?"
It was NOT removed from ALL vaccines, some still contain it, even it trace amounts.
These are the very reasons that the anti-vax crowd do NOT trust healthcare providers. If you make an incorrect statement like this, why should anyone trust anything else that you say.
One lie is enough to question all truths.
Actually I didn't say "ALL vaccines" I said "all childhood vaccines" (as you can clearly read above). Influenza is an annual vaccine for all ages older than 6 months; I don't consider it a childhood vaccine, like most HCPs. I also use only single dose influenza vaccines.
It is very clearly listed what vaccines even contain "trace" amounts: multi-dose flu and one manufactuer of DTaP (tripedia), which contains such a low dose that it barely meets the most sensitive detection levels at less than 0.3 micrograms.
Influenza is recommended and given to children ages older than 6.
It is good that you only use single dose, that does not mean that everyone else does.
My point is that if you had said to a parent who was worried about vaccine safety, "Just so everyone is clear, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines in the US in 2001,†and influenza was recommended for their child, why would they believe you?
This is the problem. Parents are told that vaccines are safe. They should be told for the majority of people they are safe, but there are risks of side effects such as…â€
Then when a child (whom the parent was told vaccines are safe) develop side effects, trust is lost.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that providers and manufacturers have no liability in the safety of the product to the patient.
The pharmaceutical industry and medicine do not exactly have the best track record on pharmaceuticals.
Influenza is recommended and given to children ages older than 6.
It is good that you only use single dose, that does not mean that everyone else does.
My point is that if you had said to a parent who was worried about vaccine safety, "Just so everyone is clear, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines in the US in 2001,†and influenza was recommended for their child, why would they believe you?
This is the problem. Parents are told that vaccines are safe. They should be told for the majority of people they are safe, but there are risks of side effects such as…â€
Then when a child (whom the parent was told vaccines are safe) develop side effects, trust is lost.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that providers and manufacturers have no liability in the safety of the product to the patient.
The pharmaceutical industry and medicine do not exactly have the best track record on pharmaceuticals.
We hand out VIS to every patient and ask for any questions before administering a vaccine. And we tell them exactly that. "MMR can help your child from contacting MMR.It is a live vaccine. Common side effects are... Here is a list of side effects and adverse reactions. Take a few and look that over, and I'm here if you need to ask any questions."
This is the problem. Parents are told that vaccines are safe. They should be told for the majority of people they are safe, but there are risks of side effects such as…â€
Then when a child (whom the parent was told vaccines are safe) develop side effects, trust is lost.
A. I highly doubt that any actual providers are going around saying "Vaccines are safe" without any caveats or qualifications. That would just be idiotic. In my experience, they are making the kinds of statements you say they should be making.
B. Any parent, or any other adult individual, who was told, "Vaccines (or any other medication) are safe" and believed that to mean that the provider was guaranteeing 100% safety, no risk of any possible adverse effects, rather than understanding the individual to be saying that vaccines are generally safe for most people, but there is no medication on the planet that is 100% for 100% of people, no possibility of any adverse effect, is an idiot.
I would like to thank you for your very thoughtful and engaging post.
I appreciate some of the points you made, and feel motivated to search further about some information you pointed out.
I have wondered as I read through this thread why there seems to be such a black/white slant to the topic even here in an active forum of the healthcare profession? Why don't more nurses accept that perhaps with that covered up research, more studies might have been initiated, more paths of research could have already been forged so that choices related to delaying vaccines/changing the timeline of vaccinating at the very least would be considered?
Everyone affected by Autism is not a radical, emotionally-charged idjit who cares nothing for the rest of the human race. Many of us in fact marched along lock, stock and barrel with all of our children, trusting our medical providers when they told us unequivocally that was the best we could do for our children.
No one told us that we were going to be the "other guys", the ones who were just a little too unfortunate to eventually have a child be diagnosed with Autism. Nope. And to this day I see we are still being told that the greater good should be foremost on our minds as opposed to our own family and parental decisions about our kids. Funny thing is, I haven't met too many people who actually have Autism touch their families that feel martyr-like and thankful they have saved ever so many other children's lives by doing the standard vax series.
Most often we are explicitly told we are "just widely varying anecdotal data."
I hope and pray there are scientists, and evidence-based practitioners interested in studying the issue who go forward with continued work which will soon provide answers. And I stand up for families who are living with this life-changing disorder, extending them compassion as they search for anything which will provide answers.
Yes, a healthy balanced outlook to just make progress going forward after diagnosis is a positive thing. That's what we tried our best to do. Heck, at first we didn't really even have time to eat or sleep, let alone focus on "why."
But eventually for many, that soul-sucking, emotionally-crushing black void finds its way into hearts and minds. The questions are many, the answers almost non-existent.
Our son did have immediate detrimental reaction to his 15 month series appointment. We have documented evidence of 'normal' developmental progression until the 48 hours after his MMR booster. We have medical records, we have video's, we have family journaling of activities and milestones until that fateful week. He was our sunny, water-loving, toddling all-over the place, really happy 14 month-old. Then everything changed. Extended fever, prolonged crying, lost progression walking/even crawling, no further eye contact, loss of his budding vocabulary, reacting as if in severe pain whenever water touched him, wide variations in appetite and sleeping patterns...the list is long.
When you hear these stories, please refrain from thinking "my" thinking is somehow misty, foggy not factual. I know these to be absolute truths and differences from his 14 months of life prior to the 48 hours after those 15 month booster shots. I am not 'remembering wrong' nor am I creating false memories or any other ridiculous excuses while feeling sorry for myself. We extend the appropriate respect to parents on many decision-making choices about their children in the west, why depart so vastly in regards to parental choice in medical decisions such as this?
What is more - many families were not told about accessing anything related to the vaccine injury path. I know it seems more widely known now, but that was not so in the late 1990's. We got immediate symptom response for our child of course by our health provider. Then after six more peds doctor appointments with our growing alarmed list of changes in our child, we were given a referral to the nearest Autism Research facility. Thankfully, once there (*which took 8 weeks to even get an initial appointment), we received awesome support and began to ferret out any and everything connected to therapy and how our child's life could be most productive going forward.
We have always been hopeful that research would continue to be conducted and that human beings sometime in the future wouldn't have to face what our child lives with...you know, prevention. However we continue to be looked at as suspicious zealots when the topic of decision-based vaccinations comes up. Our path is set and we deal with it in as positive a way as possible, loving our child 110% just like his siblings, none of whom have any spectrum affectations or symptoms. But still, we wonder.
As for those who hold the greater good of the general public up as most important justification for the complete suggested vaccination path, I juxtapose the greater good of all future families who hope to finally have solid information and a credible way to make choices which will absolutely protect their children from this horrific disorder. I salute all who have had to make choices for special needs children, Autistic or not. It is not a life of martydom at all.
Love and peace and thanks to JenRNWI for her thinking post here today.
A. I highly doubt that any actual providers are going around saying "Vaccines are safe" without any caveats or qualifications. That would just be idiotic. In my experience, they are making the kinds of statements you say they should be making.
B. Any parent, or any other adult individual, who was told, "Vaccines (or any other medication) are safe" and believed that to mean that the provider was guaranteeing 100% safety, no risk of any possible adverse effects, rather than understanding the individual to be saying that vaccines are generally safe for most people, but there is no medication on the planet that is 100% for 100% of people, no possibility of any adverse effect, is an idiot.
Vaccine Information Statements are available for all vaccines. They list both the benefits and risks of the vaccine being administered. The VIS is given to anyone receiving a vaccine. No one is being told that vaccines are 100% safe and without any risk.
This is the problem. Parents are told that vaccines are safe. They should be told for the majority of people they are safe, but there are risks of side effects such as…â€
Vaccines are safe. They have been demonstrated for decades to be safe. Safe does not mean free from all possible adverse effects. In my years of practice I have never seen or heard of any healthcare providers telling a patient that anything is 100% safe. We all know that is not true. There a risk with every action and there is also a risk with inaction.
This is why VIS sheets, which list side effects, must be distributed with (most) vaccinations under Federal law.
VIS sheets are mandatory under federal law for diphtheria, tetorifice, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio,hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), influenza, pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal, rotavirus, human papillomavirus (HPV), or varicella (chickenpox only).
Just look at comments on the original article and how many people are saying vaccines are safe without the disclaimer. That happens in real life too. What makes one think that people researching vaccine safety won't find this discussion?
Handing one a pamphlet is not the same as talking to a person and continuing to earn their trust. Just because one has initials after their name does not grant them unquestioning trust. In fact, it is just the opposite, you are held to a higher standard.
How many people are aware that formaldehyde added to vaccines (like DTaP)? So what does one tell a parent about the safety of formaldehyde?
Just look at comments on the original article and how many people are saying vaccines are safe without the disclaimer. That happens in real life too. What makes one think that people researching vaccine safety won't find this discussion?
Handing one a pamphlet is not the same as talking to a person and continuing to earn their trust. Just because one has initials after their name does not grant them unquestioning trust. In fact, it is just the opposite, you are held to a higher standard.
How many people are aware that formaldehyde added to vaccines (like DTaP)? So what does one tell a parent about the safety of formaldehyde?
There's formaldehyde in apples.
I don't think anyone here said vaccines are safe without a "disclaimer". I don't know what comments or original article you are referring to.
Again, all medications, vaccines, treatments have some sort of side effect and/or adverse reaction. There is no perfect cure. No one here has said that. Getting vaccinated is best practice.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
Farawyn
12,646 Posts
concerned lady, is that a double post?
As stated, the movie producer really holds no pull as far as knowledge of vaccine effectiveness. Nor does "Andy."