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?
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.
They must think we're absolutely crackers.
First world problems for sure. I am an immigrant from one such country and I can not fathom choosing to not vaccinate my children. I just can't. It is truly mind boggling.
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. .
Good morning everyone,
Man, sometimes I think I need to work days, instead of nights. But then, I would probably never get any work done. :)
Banterings, I personally feel it would be manslaughter because it is a choice, on par to drinking and driving. They are choices selfishly made with no regard to public safety, thereby should carry the same sentence under the law.
The other point you make would be akin to holding the government responsible for a person dying from wearing a seat belt in an accident. Both are best practices held up by sound scientific studies.
Oh, just thought of this. Banterings? Who receives the ticket if a child is not buckled in? (precedence)
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.
Good. Maybe you can start where the authors brought up that point, and have shown where they find it negligible.
Also, I believe the point about Thimerosal having ANYTHING to do with higher risk of ASD has been covered ad nauseum. I remember reading a post from BostonFNP about an apple having more Thimerosal than all childhood vaccines combined (correct me if I am wrong, Boston :) ). And before you blast me for taking your words out of context, I know you said if. The problem being, others WILL overlook that word, and I would rather head them off at the pass, so to speak.
One last note, if you have read previous posts in this thread, then you will know how I feel about abhorrent spelling and grammar. Please re-edit your post for both. To me, it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
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).
Went through this one. Very interesting summary, especially when the timeline would effect the initial dose of HBV. I will have to look at the study at leisure.
The study referred to in the news articles the links go to, on the rate of Somali children being diagnosed with autism, found the Somali rate to be on par with the caucasian children in the same city, albeit at a more severe level. Could that be because of their culture, causing the children to be diagnosed later, which will impair the coping mechanisms for the child?
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. .
You posed a question which I responded to, I did not alter anything you said or treat you disrespectfully. Maybe you could clarify how I put words into your mouth or failed to respect your dignity.
You asked "Then why is it not manslaughter (against the provider) when a child dies as an adverse reaction to a vaccine."
Everything we do has the potential for harm, "do no harm" doesn't really mean do no harm, it refers to justifying risk with a potential for benefit that clearly exceeds the risks. Negligent actions by doctors are when they provide a treatment or withhold a treatment that creates far more risk for harm than it prevents. So for it to be just as negligent for a doctor to give a vaccine as to withhold a vaccine the risk vs benefit of each action would have to be comparable, and that's far from true.
You posed a question which I responded to, I did not alter anything you said or treat you disrespectfully. Maybe you could clarify how I put words into your mouth or failed to respect your dignity.
You asked "Then why is it not manslaughter (against the provider) when a child dies as an adverse reaction to a vaccine."
Everything we do has the potential for harm, "do no harm" doesn't really mean do no harm, it refers to justifying risk with a potential for benefit that clearly exceeds the risks. Negligent actions by doctors are when they provide a treatment or withhold a treatment that creates far more risk for harm than it prevents. So for it to be just as negligent for a doctor to give a vaccine as to withhold a vaccine the risk vs benefit of each action would have to be comparable, and that's far from true.
Hey Muno,
Yeah, it seems we get cries of "foul" when we don't "bend the knee".
Oh, and before you ask, Banterings. That is also a GOT reference.
On a lighter note, here are some links provided in another thread, posted by nutella. I nearly choked from laughing so hard. Nutella, if you are following this thread, thank you. You made my night.
I remember reading a post from BostonFNP about an apple having more Thimerosal than all childhood vaccines combined (correct me if I am wrong, Boston ).
I believe that is formaldehyde. Correct me if I'm wrong Boston.
HepA - Havrix - 2 doses (12 mos. and 6-18 mos. after first dose) - 100μg/dose
That's all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule for 0-6 years that contain formaldehyde. If a child got all of those doses all at once (which they never would), they would get a total of 1,824μg, or 1.824mg, of formaldehyde. A 3.2kg (~7lb) newborn with an average blood volume of 83.3mL/kg would naturally have, at any given time, about 575-862μg of formaldehyde circulating in their blood. By the time they are 6 years old (~46lb or 21kg), they'll naturally have 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood. Bear in mind that the formaldehyde from each shot will not build up in their bodies from shot to shot, as it is very rapidly (within hours) metabolized and eliminated as formate in the urine or breathed out as CO2.
So what's the most a child might get in a single office visit? That would probably be at their 6 month visit (when they are, on average, 16.5lbs or 7.5kg) with HepB, DTaP, IPV and flu, for a total of 307.5μg. That is about 160 times less than the total amount their body naturally produces every single day*. Compare that to the 428.4-1,516.4μg of formaldehyde in a single apple..........
.....Formaldehyde has a lot of scary connotations and images associated with it. It's very easy to let that fear lead us astray and blow things out of proportion. But when you step back and look at things, you realize that, where formaldehyde and vaccines are concerned, there really is nothing to be afraid of. The amount that is present is so small as to be only a negligible exposure, one that the body very quickly handles by either using it for normal cell functions or getting rid of it completely. The beginnings of adverse effects aren't even seen until exposed to many times the residual amounts present in vaccines. While reductions in the amount of environmental exposure are a good thing, the tiny amounts in vaccines are not a health concern......
The bottom line is, put things in perspective and you'll find that what sounds scary really isn't.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
).
banterings
278 Posts
Thank you.