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?
It seems that those who oppose vaccinations put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la" when examples of vaccine preventable disease or deaths are brought up. Do they they think it can't happen to them or their children? Sadly, the liklihood of the unvaccinated acquiring a vaccine preventable disease is going to increase as vaccination rates go down. I truly feel for those children who are being put in harm's way. I also am very saddened by the lack of compassion I'm seeing towards those affected by diseases that could have been prevented with a vaccine. It's the epitome of self-centeredness.
Great post.
I think that this is what saddens me most about the anti-vaccine movement. The fact that they largely ignore scientific evidence is immensely frustrating, but the refusal to acknowledge the fact that millions of children have died from diseases that are now vaccine-preventable and many other have survived them, but have had their lives drastically altered by serious sequelae, is what really gets to me. To my knowledge none of the posters who oppose childhood vaccines in this thread or in previous threads on the same topic, have commented at all regarding the many deaths and disabilities caused by these infectious diseases. It's like all that suffering and all those deaths mean nothing at all.
In my opinion vaccinations are one of the greatest medical achievements of modern civilization.
I previously posted a link to a film review. I know that some of you noticed that it is written by a parent of a child with autism. I hope that those against childhood vaccines saw this too as I was trying to make the point that having personal experience of a family member with autism, doesn't automatically make a person reject science.
The two following links lead to blogs that I think can safely be labeled anti-woo woo :) They describe my feelings about Andrew Wakefield and the CDC whistleblower nonsense (yes, I really called it nonsense), very well.
I've still only seen the trailer of the film Vaxxed (which didn't contain anything remotely convincing) and from what I gather, there won't be one iota of credible evidence in it. I'm reasonably sure that it'll only be regurgitation of Wakefield's retracted study and the so-called whistleblower (which amounts to nothing).
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.
"Vaccine shedding" isn't actually a thing, but if what you're saying is that if it were, and those who've been recently vaccinated had a higher risk of infecting others should be isolated while that risk is elevated, why shouldn't those who don't chose to be vaccinated also "isolate themselves"?
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.
The evidence of vaccine caused deaths is exceedingly rare, particularly compared to the number of deaths vaccines prevent, which is the balance of risk vs benefit is clearly in favor of vaccinations. Your suggestion that maybe we should consider it manslaughter if someone dies from the vaccine would assume that the established risks of vaccinations exceeds the benefits, what are you basing that on?
The evidence of vaccine caused deaths is exceedingly rare, particularly compared to the number of deaths vaccines prevent, which is the balance of risk vs benefit is clearly in favor of vaccinations. Your suggestion that maybe we should consider it manslaughter if someone dies from the vaccine would assume that the established risks of vaccinations exceeds the benefits, what are you basing that on?
Did you comprehend what my post said or are you just responding to key words?
WHERE DID I EVER SAY VACCINES ARE DANGEROUS IN THAT POST???
The post that you quoted was a response to ShaneTeam saying "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."
My post questions [shaneTeam] as why it is then NOT manslaughter if a vaccine kills someone.
I MADE NO CLAIMS AS TO THE DANGERS OR SAFETY OF VACCINES.
Please RESPECT my dignity as a person, reread what I said, please STOP putting words in my mouth, and please stop making assumptions about me. .
Please stick to the Terms of Service. Personal attacks, off-topic posting, speaking in all caps, etc will be removed or the thread will be closed. There have been several warnings already on this thread. Please debate the issue and not the poster.
"Conclusions and Relevance In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD."
Conclusions and Relevance are meaningless if the study designs flawed.
The study is stratified in the fact that the study participants are children with privately insurance and with older siblings. I see what the authors are aiming for; looking at children with higher risk factors. First I will determine the validity of their "higher risk factors,†second I will determine that if being covered by privately insurance skews the results.
This is just an example of how privately insurance COULD skew the results. (Note: I am NOT saying that this is conclusive, it is an example for demonstration purposes only.)
People with private insurance may be able to afford better vaccines (single dose in the PCP's office vs. multi-dose in a community free clinic).
If (note I said if†in this theoretical example) thimerosal was somehow responsible for autism, the results of this study would be skewed as those more exposed to thimerosal are excluded.
I do not jump to conclusions OR take someone's word simply because they say so. I would expect that people involved in a discussion that includes Wakefield's study would not simply take ANY study at face value without scrutiny.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
Great post.
I think that this is what saddens me most about the anti-vaccine movement. The fact that they largely ignore scientific evidence is immensely frustrating, but the refusal to acknowledge the fact that millions of children have died from diseases that are now vaccine-preventable and many other have survived them, but have had their lives drastically altered by serious sequelae, is what really gets to me. To my knowledge none of the posters who oppose childhood vaccines in this thread or in previous threads on the same topic, have commented at all regarding the many deaths and disabilities caused by these infectious diseases. It's like all that suffering and all those deaths mean nothing at all.
In my opinion vaccinations are one of the greatest medical achievements of modern civilization.
I previously posted a link to a film review. I know that some of you noticed that it is written by a parent of a child with autism. I hope that those against childhood vaccines saw this too as I was trying to make the point that having personal experience of a family member with autism, doesn't automatically make a person reject science.
The two following links lead to blogs that I think can safely be labeled anti-woo woo :) They describe my feelings about Andrew Wakefield and the CDC whistleblower nonsense (yes, I really called it nonsense), very well.
Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism – Respectful Insolence
CDC whistleblower – zombie anti-vaccine trope still lives
I've still only seen the trailer of the film Vaxxed (which didn't contain anything remotely convincing) and from what I gather, there won't be one iota of credible evidence in it. I'm reasonably sure that it'll only be regurgitation of Wakefield's retracted study and the so-called whistleblower (which amounts to nothing).