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?
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).
No one in any setting is using glass or "silicone" syringes to administer vaccines, or any other kind of injection. Everyone uses plastic syringes. Essentially the same plastic syringes.
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).
We only use plastic syringes in my ed and i can't remember the last time i saw a glass syringe. What do you use in your practice?
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.
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:
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....
Hearsay refers to information that may not be reliable because it does not come directly from the source, Andrew Wakefield has not only seen the movie, he made the movie, so what he say is in and isn't in the movie is not hearsay. Are you saying Wakefield isn't a reliable source for what is in his own movie?
We only use plastic syringes in my ed and i can't remember the last time i saw a glass syringe. What do you use in your practice?
That was just a for instance†to attempt to differentiate between the quality of syringes. Not meant to be taken literally.
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 don't get into the micro management aspect of the types of syringes.
Hearsay refers to information that may not be reliable because it does not come directly from the source, Andrew Wakefield has not only seen the movie, he made the movie, so what he say is in and isn't in the movie is not hearsay. Are you saying Wakefield isn't a reliable source for what is in his own movie?
I guess I missed Wakefield's post here, because anything one says about the movie, based on what Wakefield said, IS hearsay. [if] Wakefield (OR anyone else who saw the film) posted here, that would NOT be hearsay.
Read my post above where I give the definition of hearsay.
I guess I missed Wakefield's post here, because anything one says about the movie, based on what Wakefield said, IS hearsay. [if] Wakefield (OR anyone else who saw the film) posted here, that would NOT be hearsay.
Read my post above where I give the definition of hearsay.
So just to be clear you really are saying that Wakefield is not a reliable source for what's in a movie that he made? If a source is only reliable if the person(s) being sourced actually posts here, then you're saying none of your posts that referenced sources are valid?
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.
And the definition of data does not include "my friend next door has a sneaking suspicion."
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.
Actually, what would be "not very scientific" would be just blindly accepting any old theory anyone puts forward without remaining skeptical and waiting for evidence one way or the other. The onus is on the individual(s) putting forth the theory to provide some sort of evidence, other than "I think this is true."
And, once again, you are putting forth strawman arguments. No one on earth is suggesting that "there are no answers(,) to the causes of autism." People are only suggesting that the causes you are putting forward over and over and over again have been thoroughly discredited. Of course there are "causes of autism." We just don't know what they are yet. We may figure them out at some point in the future. We may never figure them out. What we do know is that there is no evidence to suggest that vaccines are one of them..
At this point they are grasping at straws. They are so hellbent on blaming vaccines for autism that if medical science does manage to find the cause of autism, they will continue to say its all lies and that it's the evil vaccines. I don't think they are prepared or willing to accept anything else.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Hi Farawyn and Heron,
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.
But eventually, one must move on from a hypothesis to providing facts to back it up; otherwise, the hypothesis fails.
In this case, no facts have been provided, but proponents of anti-vaccine repeatedly attempt to skip past the pesky detail of proving their theory, that vaccines cause autism, and claim that the anecdotal evidence they provide is all that's needed to back up their claims.
So just to be clear you really are saying that Wakefield is not a reliable source for what's in a movie that he made? If a source is only reliable if the person(s) being sourced actually posts here, then you're saying none of your posts that referenced sources are valid?
I did NOT say anything that speaks to Wakefield's credibility.
What I said is that anyone talking about the film having NOT seen it IS hearsay.
If Wakefield posted here, that is NOT hearsay.
If someone who saw the film posted here, that is NOT hearsay.
Banterings-
What is it that you do for a living? I'm genuinely curious. Your profile is a bit evasive.
What I do for a living is very complicated. Basically, when something very bad happens, I get paid to make sure the problem is fixed correctly, swiftly, and efficiently. Most times that involves somebody or somebodies being hurt.
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.
I do not want to go in to too much detail because of who my clients are.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
elkpark
14,633 Posts
No one in any setting is using glass or "silicone" syringes to administer vaccines, or any other kind of injection. Everyone uses plastic syringes. Essentially the same plastic syringes.