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?
Ah. That's why you are here. Not because you are pro choice when it comes to vaccines. It's job security. Because when the fall out of the anti vax movement happens, he will be making LOTS of money.
And the definition of data does not include "my friend next door has a sneaking suspicion."
Purple Roses, you are so right, that DATA doesn't include your "friend next door" having a "sneaking suspicion."
But, my acquaintance (not a friend, and not next door) is entitled to have a THEORY/HYPOTHESIS, that her unfortunate child may have had a confluence of circumstances of a genetic problem, coupled with adverse vaccine reaction, resulting in autism.
And that mom can do what she can to prevent her subsequent children with the same genetic problem, from becoming autistic, by avoiding the vaccine that she hypothesizes was a factor in her first child's autism.
CL, you are right. She has the privilege to make that choice. I just wish the legal system would realize that if an unvaccinated child dies, it is akin to manslaughter, and that she should also be held responsible for that decision.
Thank you for generously acknowledging that a mother has the right (you call it a privilege) to make health decisions for her own child, such as NOT having her genetically challenged child vaccinated, in order to theoretically prevent autism in her child.
Her unvaccinated child is also in danger of having a vaccinated person "shedding" some parts of the vaccine, onto her unvaccinated child.
This "shedding" problem can also affect infants and pregnant mothers, and children who for various health reasons are not supposed to be vaccinated, according to those children's medical doctors.
So, it might be desirable for recently vaccinated children and adults to voluntarily isolate themselves, at home, for several weeks, in order to prevent their giving (by "shedding") an unwanted present (parts of their vaccine) to unvaccinated people.
Her unvaccinated child is also in danger of having a vaccinated person "shedding" some parts of the vaccine, onto her unvaccinated child.
That would be a best-case scenario because some of the weakened virus would shed to the unvaccinated kid and allow the kid to develop immuinity as if they were vaccinated without ever having the vaccine. I would think most anti-vax people would love this. It's the lowest risk scenario for them.
Alas, there has never been a clearly documented case of vaccine-associated measles in the history of MMR vaccination.
Purple Roses, you are so right, that DATA doesn't include your "friend next door" having a "sneaking suspicion."
But, my acquaintance (not a friend, and not next door) is entitled to have a THEORY/HYPOTHESIS, that her unfortunate child may have had a confluence of circumstances of a genetic problem, coupled with adverse vaccine reaction, resulting in autism.
And when your acquaintance does some legitimate research to test that "THEORY/HYPOTHESIS" and her results, and results of other studies replicating her study, support her hypothesis, the rest of us will take her seriously. Until then it is "just a sneaking suspicion."
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.
Untrue, the underlined part. Every study has to look at both vaccinated and unvaccinated children in order to be a valid study. Not just vaccinated children, because that would be worthless information since the point of the numerous studies was to try to find a link, so unvaccinated children have been a crucial part of the studies. and all of them have found that vaccinated and unvaccinated children are affected by autism at about the same rate.
CL, you are right. She has the privilege to make that choice. I just wish the legal system would realize that if an unvaccinated child dies, it is akin to manslaughter, and that she should also be held responsible for that decision.
Then why is it NOT manslaughter (against the provider) when a child dies as an adverse reaction to a vaccine?
Just like the unvaccinated child, the death IS preventable if the choice not to vaccinate is made?
What if a vaccinated person contracts a preventable†(via vaccination) disease and spreads it? Is that person (parents) just as liable if that person had not been vaccinated?
This is a Bolshevik mentality. If it is manslaughter for one, it must be for all.
Here is something that I am sure that many people have not thought about:
Nobody will argue the fact that administrators are cutting costs (and corners) everywhere they can. Many have argued that this is beginning to become a safety issue which still does not get the administrators to change.
The influenza vaccine is mandated for all staff at healthcare facilities. They even have flu clinics†set up in the facilities where the staff can go (prior to flu season) to get vaccinated for free and meet their employment mandate.
So why would the administration use the more expensive single-dose when they can save money on the multi-dose? No problem, it is safe.
I am wondering if anyone thought about this before or how many have their own physician do their flu vaccines.
Again, this is not anti-vax, this is to stimulate critical thinking.
So why would the administration use the more expensive single-dose when they can save money on the multi-dose? No problem, it is safe.
my facility chooses this option because they see it as Time Is Money and nurses spend more time drawing up and potentially wasting vaccinations from large vials than they do when they can much more quickly access and administer from single-dose vials. You would probably know that, though if you worked in the field! It isn't a critical thinking issue, it is a simple knowledge issue.
my facility chooses this option because they see it as Time Is Money and nurses spend more time drawing up and potentially wasting vaccinations from large vials than they do when they can much more quickly access and administer from single-dose vials. You would probably know that, though if you worked in the field! It isn't a critical thinking issue, it is a simple knowledge issue.
If you read my post, I am talking specifically mass-vaccination clinics.
According to your words, you are saying nurses lack the skill to efficiently administer vaccines from multi dose vials. I would assume that they would use nurses proficient at this.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
cherryelle07
105 Posts
Ah. That's why you are here. Not because you are pro choice when it comes to vaccines. It's job security. Because when the fall out of the anti vax movement happens, he will be making LOTS of money.