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?
So how does the issue of global warming compare to the anti-vax movement (or vice-versa)?
Would it be fair to compare global warming (An Inconvenient Truth) advocates to anti-vaxers?
Would it be fair to compare the gun control lobby (Bowling for Columbine) to anti-vaxers?
So I ask this in all seriousness since all 3 have been painted as more pseudoscience.
The answer will give insights into the anti-vax movement.
I have never ever heard gun control or global warming supporters called pseudoscientists, maybe that's just me. In those cases there is extant data to support an argument.
For me, anti-vax is more akin to the chemtrails and anti-GMO crowd than the global warming crowd.
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.
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).
You weren't clear here: do you feel the study design is flawed or not?
As far as your example, yes I agree there are limitations and that could in fact be one, but if so you would expect that the baseline ASD rate to be significantly lower than the general population, but it's not in this case. I also think that non-whites are underrepresented in the study but again the ASD rates are similar to the general population.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
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).

I think about the parents of children in third world countries. Parents who would beg, borrow, or steal to get their children the vaccinations that people in this country cast aside in such a cavalier manner. Those parents know that those vaccines can mean the difference between life or death for their children.
You weren't clear here: do you feel the study design is flawed or not?
As far as your example, yes I agree there are limitations and that could in fact be one, but if so you would expect that the baseline ASD rate to be significantly lower than the general population, but it's not in this case. I also think that non-whites are underrepresented in the study but again the ASD rates are similar to the general population.
Not sure if study is flawed or not.
Flawed studies have relevance. If this study focuses on affluent white families, then that is relevant when compared to a study that would look at entire population.
As I said, I am looking it over. It is 9:15 PM EST, I am just finishing up with my California clients. I routinely do 12 hr days, checking email and posting here when I need to take brakes. I have not had a chance to go over the study. The insurance and sibling aspects were just what I saw on the surface.
ADHD, autism, [even] depression, and some other neurological/cognitive based disorders have been called white†disorders. Some have seen a higher rate in caucasians (especially males), others are due to disparities in the quality of healthcare and Dx.
There are even questions about the rate of ASD in the general population and the increase in the rate of ASD in the population being more recognizable and from the ACA having more people covered.
There have been a couple interesting studies on Somali immigrants here in the US, Sweden, and some other countries. The Swedish study finds a link to Vitamin D, thought to be the result of less sunlight. The US study found the the Somalis had more severe symptoms, but the study did not look at causes. Obviously there has been speculation on vaccines (required for immigration), even more plastics (phthalates) in the US vs. Africa, and the quality of healthcare.
IMHO, the Somali immigrant studies point to some environmental factors in the developed world.
A study first in the BJM and then a 2014 study study co-author Dr. Robert Wood, chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center (published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) found that a home that's too clean can leave a newborn child vulnerable to allergies and asthma later in life, a new study reports.
Infants are much less likely to suffer from allergies or wheezing if they are exposed to household bacteria and allergens from rodents, roaches and cats during their first year of life, the study found. (Source: Birth cohorts in asthma and allergic diseases )
Perhaps being too clean and/or vaccines in children too young may have adverse effects. (Reference: New Evidence Explains Poor Infant Immune Response To Certain Vaccines ) Again, this is not to conclude that vaccines cause autism, but it is to expand on the Somali studies that point to a potential environmental cause (not necessarily a singular cause , but possibly a combination there of).
That leads me to another point on ASD studies, none have looked at a possibly of a combination of factors or a perfect storm†of factors.
Again, just an example to illustrate the combination of factors: What if being too clean in the US compromises an infant's immune system, further compromised by being vaccinated too early leaves them vulnerable to phthalates in plastics actually causes autism?
I think about the parents of children in third world countries. Parents who would beg, borrow, or steal to get their children the vaccinations that people in this country cast aside in such a cavalier manner. Those parents know that those vaccines can mean the difference between life or death for their children.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
banterings
278 Posts
Spider's mom,
Thank you for that.
I hope you can see why I feel that way when my comments are continually taken out of context.