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?
If you want to suppose that maybe it's not the vaccines themselves causing autism, it's the phthalates, then how come all the studies that have been done looking for links between vaccines (administered via syringes containing phthalates) and autism haven't found any connection? If your theory is correct, that it's not the vaccine itself, but the syringe containing the vaccine, that is the problem, wouldn't the research results show a connection?
Not necessarily. It depends on how the studies were done. If they were comparing levels (presence) of thimerosal, and the syringes caused the autism, results would be inconclusive (assuming all syringes had different levels of thimerosal).
One link that I can see from stepping back that may explain the correlation (disclaimer this is an observational theory ONLY), is that facilities that would use the cheaper (buy in bulk) multi-dose would more likely use cheaper plastic syringes (equating price to phthalate levels) versus other more expensive types (glass, silicone, perhaps?). There is the possibility of vaccination during inpatient procedures (taken from multi-dose).
Again, these things would not be looked at in studies of thimerosal.
Again to my point, the anti-vax crowd may have noticed a correlation with healthcare and autism that no one else has. What happens to the credibility of medicine if we find that a correlation to autism and phthalate in healthcare in children with autism?
What happens to trust if we find that while everybody was defending vaccines and besmirching anti-vax parents, nobody was looking for the cause of autism?
Not necessarily. It depends on how the studies were done. If they were comparing levels (presence) of thimerosal, and the syringes caused the autism, results would be inconclusive (assuming all syringes had different levels of thimerosal).
One link that I can see from stepping back that may explain the correlation (disclaimer this is an observational theory ONLY), is that facilities that would use the cheaper (buy in bulk) multi-dose would more likely use cheaper plastic syringes (equating price to phthalate levels) versus other more expensive types (glass, silicone, perhaps?). There is the possibility of vaccination during inpatient procedures (taken from multi-dose).
Again, these things would not be looked at in studies of thimerosal.
Again to my point, the anti-vax crowd may have noticed a correlation with healthcare and autism that no one else has. What happens to the credibility of medicine if we find that a correlation to autism and phthalate in healthcare in children with autism?
What happens to trust if we find that while everybody was defending vaccines and besmirching anti-vax parents, nobody was looking for the cause of autism?
And what happens to trust when a person believes all the anti-vax literature about developing "natural immunity" and not needing vaccines, and their child dies from meningitis?
What happens to trust if we find that while everybody was defending vaccines and besmirching anti-vax parents, nobody was looking for the cause of autism?
It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that no one is looking for the cause of autism, or even to suggest that the vaccine/autism link has not been researched exhaustively, not only here in the US, but all over the world.
Can you please further explain the connection between health care and autism? I'm not clear on that, unless it's just another way of saying that vaccines cause autism.
As far as choice as concerned, I believe people should have choices about most things. We don't get to choose about taking a test to get our drivers license. Why? Because it's a public safety issue. I feel the same way about vaccines-they help protect public safety. If you don't want to have vaccines, then you lose some privileges-public schooling, for one. No one is forcing anyone to be vaccinated, but be prepared to deal with the ramifications if you choose not to. Don't whine that you're being excluded from something. You can't have it both ways.
Iatrogenic exposure to DEHP metabolites during intensive care was independently and robustly associated with the important attention deficit observed in children 4 years after critical illness.
Medical Definition of iatrogenic. : induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures
The phthalates the children in the study were exposed to are the ones used to make plastic IV tubes, catheters, and in other medical devices.
It's pretty disingenuous to suggest that no one is looking for the cause of autism, or even to suggest that the vaccine/autism link has not been researched exhaustively, not only here in the US, but all over the world.
It is NOT disingenuous. There is NO study that specifically and completely looks at autism in unvaccinated children.
It is NOT disingenuous. There is NO study that specifically and completely looks at autism in unvaccinated children.
So it has NOT been researched exhaustively.
It most certainly IS DISINGENUOUS to assert that "nobody is looking for the cause of autism." There ABSOLUTELY is continuing ongoing research into the causes of autism. In fact, I think it would be even more unethical to focus research solely on links to vaccination. Because, what if there really is no link at all to vaccines, and "no one is actually looking for the real cause of autism?"
Although not definitive, more research needed, it does show a connection.
None of this pertains to vaccines, another thread should be started to discuss other potential chemicals that are associated with ASD.
Large meta-analysis published in 2014 looked at the above listed study and many more and this was the conclusion:
The reviewed studies support an association between environmental toxicants and ASD. This may be due, in part, to higher toxicant exposures unique to individuals with ASD (that is, pica behavior) and/or increased susceptibilities to the adverse effects of toxicants. However, many of the reviewed studies contain significant weaknesses and reveal a need for more high-quality epidemiological studies concerning environmental toxicants and ASD. Many of the studies were retrospective or based on population estimates and did not confirm the ASD diagnosis. Notably, many studies did not account for the fact that exposures can occur at particular developmentally sensitive periods as many studies measured biomarkers and/or exposure at times other than these developmentally sensitive periods.
There is a difference between researched†and "researched exhaustively."
I never said it was NOT researched...
Perhaps it's not being researched exhaustively because the research money is being squandered away proving over and over again that there is no vaccine-autism link. SafeMinds, for one, just wasted another quarter million dollars on it.
Like vaccines are safe†AND vaccines are pretty safe, but there are side effects�
Perhaps it's not being researched exhaustively because the research money is being squandered away proving over and over again that there is no vaccine-autism link. SafeMinds, for one, just wasted another quarter million dollars on it.
I never used the qualifier exhaustively.â€
There is also a difference between researching the vaccine-autism link†AND researching the causes of autism.†Knowing what is NOT the cause is extremely important when trying to find what the cause is.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work." - Thomas A. Edison
None of this pertains to vaccines, another thread should be started to discuss other potential chemicals that are associated with ASD.
Large meta-analysis published in 2014 looked at the above listed study and many more and this was the conclusion:
The reviewed studies support an association between environmental toxicants and ASD. This may be due, in part, to higher toxicant exposures unique to individuals with ASD (that is, pica behavior) and/or increased susceptibilities to the adverse effects of toxicants. However, many of the reviewed studies contain significant weaknesses and reveal a need for more high-quality epidemiological studies concerning environmental toxicants and ASD. Many of the studies were retrospective or based on population estimates and did not confirm the ASD diagnosis. Notably, many studies did not account for the fact that exposures can occur at particular developmentally sensitive periods as many studies measured biomarkers and/or exposure at times other than these developmentally sensitive periods.
There is a relevance as to the issue of healthcare providers asserting the safety of vaccines (with disclaimers) when plastic medical devices are potentially toxic.
I am also speculating that like the canary in the mine shaft,†anti-vax parents may have made a connection between autism and healthcare. Now as NOT to be accused of making a statement without any supporting evidence, I offered phthalates as a possible link. YES, I agree more research is needed. Didn't SafeMinds just conduct another study?
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
banterings
278 Posts
Not necessarily. It depends on how the studies were done. If they were comparing levels (presence) of thimerosal, and the syringes caused the autism, results would be inconclusive (assuming all syringes had different levels of thimerosal).
One link that I can see from stepping back that may explain the correlation (disclaimer this is an observational theory ONLY), is that facilities that would use the cheaper (buy in bulk) multi-dose would more likely use cheaper plastic syringes (equating price to phthalate levels) versus other more expensive types (glass, silicone, perhaps?). There is the possibility of vaccination during inpatient procedures (taken from multi-dose).
Again, these things would not be looked at in studies of thimerosal.
Again to my point, the anti-vax crowd may have noticed a correlation with healthcare and autism that no one else has. What happens to the credibility of medicine if we find that a correlation to autism and phthalate in healthcare in children with autism?
What happens to trust if we find that while everybody was defending vaccines and besmirching anti-vax parents, nobody was looking for the cause of autism?