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's been interesting to read all the replies. Thank you guys!
I would post a more lenghty reply (but knowing me, this one will be plenty long ) but I just accepted an overtime shift starting in seven hours and I need to catch some zzzzz.
Surely your incredibly biased description of insane "anti-vaxxers" with similarly absent research negates your argument?
I'm all for debate, but perhaps your argument would carry more weight without the ridicule.
Hmm, this was actually me playing nice :)
Seriously, if you detect any frustration in my post, it stems from the knowledge that if childhood vaccine rates drop, more children will die.
Now, I didn't call anyone insane, but I used the word unhinged which is similar in meaning. I don't think that the majority of anti-vaccine folks are unhinged, merely uninformed.
Regarding the minority, I assume that you agree with me that thinking that the government or pharmaceutical companies or some other unnamed entity are deliberately adding harmful ingredients to childhood vaccines with the purpose of causing serious disease, doesn't belong in the realm of mentally healthy?
I didn't reference any research due to two reasons. First of I didn't really want this thread to become another battle between the pro and anti groups. There have been so many of those threads and they never seem to lead anywhere. No matter how much credible research is presented, the outcome is the same. I'm not in the mood for playing the role of Sisyphus.
Secondly, I simply operate under the assumption that the majority of nurses who have been trained in interpretating research will have already arrived at the conclusion that the benefit of the MMR vaccine clearly outweighs the risks (and autism isn't one of them).
As there is little research to prove either argument I would say that discussion about the topic should be welcomed until such time that a determination can be made.
We need more research.
How do you figure? Literally hundredsofmillions of MMR doses have been administered since the early 1970s. To date there is nocredibleresearch linking autism to the MMR vaccine. I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curiosu. How many more administered doses will it take before you can finally relax and believe/trust the data? A billion? Twenty billion?
I can't believe this issue hasn't been laid to rest yet. It would seem that any halfway intelligent person would know that many fatal diseases have been eradicated or are virtually unknown now. Did they not learn about influenza epidemics and polio in history? I just don't get it.
As for those who don't want to vaccinate their children, fine. But please be prepared to home school them and in general, keep them out of big public spaces. I treat children and adults with immune disorders who cannot mount an immune response when vaccinated. it's not their choice to have this disease, but those who choose not to immunize, but want their kids in school, are nothing but selfish.
Or, completely blameless, or unknown to us thus far.
Advanced age and autism? Really?
*wanders off to read up*
I have a lot more to look through on the subject, but apparently advanced age (maternal AND paternal, and some studies place paternal age higher on the risk scale), large age span between parents, and being a teen mom are all risks.
Didn't mean to hijack the Vaxx thread (definitely pro vax here, by the way) but all of this is just fascinating. Maybe there's a reason people are "supposed" to have children in their 20s??
An unvaccinated child contracts, say chickenpox, but goes to school before diagnosis. According to my classmates, that child is a danger to their classmates who were previously vaccinated. Why? Should not their vaccination give them immunity from chickenpox? Logically, it will affect the child, but only pass on minor effects, if any to the previously vaccinated children. Yet people I know say, "the should call defax, parents arrested, waivers made of no value," and other such things. Why?
Most diseases that vaccines protect against are not just itchy bumps; they debilitate and have the potential to kill. Big difference.
As a pro-vaxxer, I believe that a child who has no choice to be protected against a deadly disease shouldn't have to die because of stubbornness or misinformation. That's why.
Autism is a behavioral diagnosis. Fragile X is a genetic diagnosis. When kids are diagnosed with an ASD, we usually do genetic testing to see if they have any genetic disorders. Fragile X is but one genetic disorder associated with autism. (The National Fragile X foundation website confirmed this also).
Kids with disorders such as Down Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis also have a higher incidence of autism, but not everyone with autism has Fragile X, Tuberous Sclerosis, or Down Syndrome.
I will add that many insurance companies have now balked on paying for some genetic tests for kids with developmental delays or disabilities citing testing will not change the treatment or the outcome.
My response and information is for people considering having children or during testing before giving birth-NOT children being tested ; again, my area has researched genetics and has the tools and availability of testing-It may not be available in your area, perhaps.
I have also worked with many Special Needs children-over 10 years; most children and all the children that I have cared for in 10 years of nursing genetically tested to confirm diagnosis-some rare conditions I'm sure many have never heard of-Wolf-Hirshorn's (which behaviorally can mimic ASD-still not ASD, but one can tailor a behavior health plan to this disorder for ASD), to several chromosome deletions, due to state assistance; a lot of the children had undergo testing either due to complications with other co current issues.
My area is very big on early intervention and has funding to assist in making diagnoses for children in order for children to have early intervention ASAP.
I also stated that Fragile X Syndrome is a leading diagnosis; my information was not to imply that ALL Fragile X kids have ASD; leading diagnosis doesn't mean anything.
if anything a risk that can be known is better than anything-any disorder that can come up on the parent's genetic profile before becoming pregnant may make them well informed and then one can make a conscious decision prior to having children.
This was in response to dishes' assertion that advanced maternal age can increase the risk of autism; hence I replied that there is genetic testing available to determine what disorders out there on the genetic profile-meaning, there are many out there that can produce many developmental delays, some that can produce behavioral disorders such as ASD; it doesn't mean they will have any of them; however, the information is available; to state that it isn't while there are health systems that are actively researching genetics and having testing available is not true.
BTW, I have not actually seen this film, I am just posting about vaccines in general.
Don't you think that someone who actually dares to question the status quo and do "unpopular" research might actually be showing signs of a working mind, meaning that they are not just accepting what is handed to them?
When the relatively small band of Patriots dared to challenge and revolt against Britain in 1776, they were considered crazy by other countries, yet they won their freedom. What has happened to our American spirit of independence that now anyone who questions the norm is considered "insane"?
Just my two cents! :)
It's been proven that he falsified information. Why would he need to do that if he really thought he was on to something? He is a man who was stripped of his license...of course he's going to continue trying to prove his side; of course he wants a following.
There are many people who go against the status quo. This doesn't make them right. He may even truly believe what he's preaching. It doesn't make him right.
(Just an aside . . . I had my last child at 44 *it was a surprise* :) and we had genetic testing during the pregnancy. There were no issues and he's fine).
I feel for parents whose child is diagnosed with autism, it must be confusing and very upsetting to hear this diagnosis. I wonder if when they are grasping for understanding, if it is easier for some parents to believe that their child's autism is related to vaccines, rather than their own advanced paternal/maternal age.
I am not sure that maternal age has anything to do with it. Not that there's ANY easy answer.
Decisions regarding not vaccinating a child is made by parents who one could assume are fully vaccinated.
Even if one gets through school with no vaccinations, young adults can be red hot that they have a delay in the ability to backpack through a foreign country or go do good works in an oppressed country because they are needing to get caught up with vaccinations.
The worst part of my career was a 3 day old infant with HIB pneumonia on a vent. Due to exposure from an unvaccinated visitor.
These preventable diseases are difficult to "get over" and can have lasting, long term, sometimes life long effects.
Autism is misunderstood, a large spectrum, and a largely hot button issue that anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists love to grab onto to further their "cause", Which always has to do with the government.
So unless we have a group of adults who are autistic, any number of which received vaccines with "additives" that aren't in today's vaccinations, it is akin to saying the kids are the pawns in which one chooses to take a political stand?! Disgraceful.
Everyone keeps mentioning Wakefield, but I don't think that is what the documentary is about, as a previous poster joshm pointed out, one of the focuses is on CDC whistleblower Dr William Thompson and the manipulation of data that showed African American males who received MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk of autism. The CDC did remove this data, I don't have any conspiracy theories about it, but I am willing to watch the movie, it will give other peoples' perspective about the issue of increased incidence of autism and I think I can manage not to buy into the fear mongering.
The controversy is not about Dr. Andrew Wakefield, nor his retracted 1998 Lancet retrospective case series analysis. Rather, a senior CDC vaccine scientist Dr. William Thompson lawyered up and issued the following public statement on August 27, 2014. Thompson is ardently provaccine, and his statement shows that; it also says:
My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
Since than, Drs. DeStefano, Boyle, and Wharton (co-authors on the 2004 Pediatrics article) have disputed Thompson's allegations; Thompson has not retracted his allegations.
Since the CDC misled about: Agent Orange; and lead in water; and Merck lied about Vioxx: and the MMR shot is already in federal court over the allegations of falsification of data about the efficacy; it would seem that a group of registered nurses would reserve judgement before condemning the messenger because they don't like the message.
Can you explain Dr. Thompson's statement, leaving Wakefield out?
The producer of the film Vaxxed is Del Bigtree. Suggest you look up his cv.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
It's been interesting to read all the replies. Thank you guys!
I would post a more lenghty reply (but knowing me, this one will be plenty long
) but I just accepted an overtime shift starting in seven hours and I need to catch some zzzzz.
Hmm, this was actually me playing nice :)
Seriously, if you detect any frustration in my post, it stems from the knowledge that if childhood vaccine rates drop, more children will die.
Now, I didn't call anyone insane, but I used the word unhinged which is similar in meaning. I don't think that the majority of anti-vaccine folks are unhinged, merely uninformed.
Regarding the minority, I assume that you agree with me that thinking that the government or pharmaceutical companies or some other unnamed entity are deliberately adding harmful ingredients to childhood vaccines with the purpose of causing serious disease, doesn't belong in the realm of mentally healthy?
I didn't reference any research due to two reasons. First of I didn't really want this thread to become another battle between the pro and anti groups. There have been so many of those threads and they never seem to lead anywhere. No matter how much credible research is presented, the outcome is the same. I'm not in the mood for playing the role of Sisyphus.
Secondly, I simply operate under the assumption that the majority of nurses who have been trained in interpretating research will have already arrived at the conclusion that the benefit of the MMR vaccine clearly outweighs the risks (and autism isn't one of them).
How do you figure? Literally hundreds of millions of MMR doses have been administered since the early 1970s. To date there is no credible research linking autism to the MMR vaccine. I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely curiosu. How many more administered doses will it take before you can finally relax and believe/trust the data? A billion? Twenty billion?
@RNurse, I am so very sorry to hear that.