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?
These are not words you use to prove your point. She can "suspect" all she wants, but doesn't make it true. I can "suspect" that wearing a skinny jeans will make me skinny. Doesn't make it true.
Thank you for being honest about getting me confused with the Vitamin C lady! I appreciate your "mea culpa". And, yes, now I see that you are still a sweet person! :-)
Shoot, I have known that since I have known Far, she is da bomb!!
These are not words you use to prove your point. She can "suspect" all she wants, but doesn't make it true. I can "suspect" that wearing a skinny jeans will make me skinny. Doesn't make it true.
Dang.
Guess the joke's on us, huh?
concerned lady, as a nurse, you know what scientific data is, yes? Please provide something.
I hope those convinced of the impossibility of a vaccine causing autism relationship, will watch the movie "VAXXED", too.
Something to think about.
Those who are convinced of the impossibility of the vaccine causing autism understand why it does not cause autism. There is nothing more to think about on that topic because there isn't a question still on the table, it's old news.
Concerned lady, I've been sorta following this thread. I've repeatedly seen you challenge posters to see this movie, but you don't mention what, if any, new information is presented that will turn the current research on its head. Muno already pointed this out, and you ignored him, too.
Do you imagine that saying the same untrue thing over and over will somehow make it so? Or that accusing people of being prejudiced because they don't choose to waste any more time relitigating the same old drek, will magically prove that vaccines cause autism?
Please - I'm a lowly ADN with nary a statistics course or research project to be found anywhere in my CV - and even I know better.
Disinformation like this always serves a hidden agenda. Big oil and big tobacco wanted to protect their profits. What's your agenda?
It is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that evidence based information often begins with a THEORY, also known as a HYPOTHESIS. Then, clinical trials, etc. are done, to attempt to prove or disprove a THEORY/HYPOTHESIS.
But, dismissing a theory, BEFORE proving (or showing evidence) that the theory is incorrect, is not very scientific.
Hi Heron,
You asked what my agenda is. It is "looking for answers", rather than making assumptions that there are no answers, to the causes of autism, etc.
But it has been disproven via scientific study and testing. Over and over and over and over. It's not like they dismissed it without testing it first. They have. You are the one dismissing this legitimate data without proof.
It is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that evidence based information often begins with a THEORY, also known as a HYPOTHESIS. Then, clinical trials, etc. are done, to attempt to prove or disprove a THEORY/HYPOTHESIS.
But, dismissing a theory, BEFORE proving (or showing evidence) that the theory is incorrect, is not very scientific.
But that's the thing. There have been myriad links in this thread to science based evidence that the "Vaccines cause Autism" theory IS incorrect.
The few links you've provided are, for the most part, hokum.
You keep throwing up smoke by posting a lot of words, but scrolling through them one can see that you keep saying the same things over and over again. And they don't make any more sense the more you say them.
She even skirted around the issue of vaccine preventable diseases. Being of her age and having the experience she claims, she has to have met at least one person who have been harmed by polio or meningitis or mumps. Heck my FIL is in his mid 50s and remembers when kids got mumps and measles all the time. He grew up dirt poor and didn't access to quality medical car and in a lot of cases vaccines. He didn't receive all of his vaccines until he joined the Army and that was only, because the Army paid for them. It's alarming to me that she wants to take that gamble especially with immigration from 3rd world countries is higher then ever in this country which means these kids who don't get vaccinated WILL get the diseases they bring.
It is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that evidence based information often begins with a THEORY, also known as a HYPOTHESIS. Then, clinical trials, etc. are done, to attempt to prove or disprove a THEORY/HYPOTHESIS.
But, dismissing a theory, BEFORE proving (or showing evidence) that the theory is incorrect, is not very scientific.
Hi Heron,
You asked what my agenda is. It is "looking for answers", rather than making assumptions that there are no answers, to the causes of autism, etc.
Reflexive denial is not very scientific.
The causal relationship between autism and vaccines has been proved to be non-existent. Over and over, ad nauseum.
Not wanting to see a documentary on a subject that is familiar to many, and will provide no information isn't reflexive denial, and it is not a scientific theory. It is a choice, and a reasonable one at that. Maybe some day we will find a cause for autism. Vaccines aren't it.
Again I make this disclaimer; do NOT take my views as anti-vax. My position is pro-choice. That does not speak to if vaccines are effective or safe. It is about the dignity of human beings and their right to self direct their lives.
I'm basing that on the descriptions of people including Wakefield who wrote and directed the movie, I don't consider that to be hearsay.
Thorough descriptions of the movie are widely available and there are no reports of new evidence.
MunoRN, it IS most definitely hearsay.
The definition of hearsay is: unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:
Basically, it is third person information. That is, you heard someone else say it.
In legal proceedings, Hearsay is NOT admissible. Here are evidentiary rules in the United States:
It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.
Just because you do not consider it hearsay, does NOT mean that it is not hearsay. That adds nothing to your argument.
concerned lady" is absolutely correct in her assertion that people are making judgements about the film having never seen it. I took my grandson to the opening of "Batman vs. Superman," which got bad reviews. I thought it was an excellent movie (the darker DC characters as opposed to the goodie-good Marvel characters). So if I just went by hearsay, I would say that "Batman vs. Superman†was not a good movie.
Believe me, I know what I speak of. Professionally, I am brought in when something REALLY bad happens, which is usually at the corner of medical†and legal.†I routinely have a team of lawyers and a team of medical providers that I direct. I deal with both the rules of law and the rules of medicine daily.
When I make a decision, it's merits will be scrutinized both legally and medically.
That being said, it is not too hard to guess the underlying theme of the movie. But the difference is like reading Wuthering Heights (with all its nuances of dialogue and time period references and reading CliffsNotes of Wuthering Heights. Furthermore, hindsight being 20/20, what we think we know today is often proven NOT the case tomorrow.
Although Wuthering Heights is now widely regarded as a classic of English literature, contemporary reviews for the novel were deeply polarised; it was considered controversial because its depiction of mental and physical cruelty was unusually stark, and it challenged strict Victorian ideals of the day, including religious hypocrisy, morality, social classes and gender inequality. The English poet and painter Dante Gabriel Rossetti referred to it as "A fiend of a book – an incredible monster ... The action is laid in hell, – only it seems places and people have English names there.†Today, we see Emily Brontë's (Ellis Bell) depiction of the period and place as historically accurate.
One thing that frightens me here is the lack of keeping an open mind by so many. HIV was thought to be a disease of homosexual males and that is why we were not prepared for it when it spread among heterosexual people and IV drug users, AND were totally blindsided by transfusions.
I have often said that premises like vaccines are mostly safe and effective†are a matter of what we think we know†(as opposed to what we knowâ€).
As to people questioning vaccines, do NOT discount their views just because they do not have initials after their names. Read the obituary of Augusto Odone in the NY Times. Despite having no scientific training, and being told nothing could be done for his son by MANY experts with an alphabet soup of initials after their names, he found a solution.
Before anyone attempts to discredit Odone, note study published in the Archives of Neurology in July 2005 followed 89 boys with ALD who took Lorenzo's oil and ate a low-fat diet. The boys had normal MRIs and no symptoms of ALD, but had been screened for the disease because they had an affected relative. After an average follow-up of seven years, 74% of the boys still had normal MRIs and no neurological symptoms.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.â€
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
cherryelle07
105 Posts
"Suspects"
"Perhaps"
"Possibility"
These are not words you use to prove your point. She can "suspect" all she wants, but doesn't make it true. I can "suspect" that wearing a skinny jeans will make me skinny. Doesn't make it true.