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?
Yes, so many members here are articulate, concise, and able to back up their posts with appropriate studies.
Me, I tend to go for sarcasm and comic relief, and cheering on all y'all smart people.
Move over, I'll share that seat with you.
I'm here as a fangirl.
I'm passionate about educating on vaccinations. I work in a school, worked in an OBGYN Clinic, and worked in Employee Health. It's part of my whole nursey thing.
These folks here can, and do, say it waaaaay bettern me, though.
I'm passionate about educating on vaccinations. I work in a school, worked in an OBGYN Clinic, and worked in Employee Health. It's part of my whole nursey thing.
These folks here can, and do, say it waaaaay bettern me, though.
I have to keep my sarcasm under wraps here. It ain't easy.
* 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?
1) The answer is more than just teaching the best EBP to our patients.......The answer is more about addressing the psych issue called reactance. The government can't mandate that someone put a potentially harmful substance in their body without it creating resistance. When the resistance is not answered with evidence that SATISFIES it creates fear which ultimately leads to some developing rational and sometimes irrational conspiracies.
2) The worst thing healthcare professionals, schools, daycares, etc... can do is pressure these patients because it only exacerbates the reactance.
3) Vaccines have become a RELIGION to many nurses and we need to accept that these patients have legitimate concerns. Let's not act like the VAERS doesn't matter! Every year in the U.S. there is about 4000 severe vaccine reactions are reported to the CDC that cause permanent disability or death. Dying or becoming permanently disabled is a legitimate concern! We need to treat these patients as we would ANY other patient that refuses treatments!
4) Many feel that they have about the same chance of dying or becoming permanently disabled from the vaccine as they do with contracting the illness. If you look at statisical history this viewpoint has some legitimacy.
6) If healthcare organizations really want to protect patients why do they ignore current scientific evidence and not mandate that all nurses wear a mask? For example, Does Wearing a Mask Prevent the Flu?
7) Why do healthcare organizations ignore current evidence and still practice outdated policies that are not supported by scientific research relating to the flu vaccine? For example, Benefit of Healthcare Worker Flu Shots Questioned
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)
I do not think that governments should legislate seat belt requirements. Seat belts are unconstitutionally, (based on the Equal Protection Clause). If states do not mandate that operators of motor vehicles such as motorcycles use seat belts, under the Equal Protection Clause, they can not mandate that for me in a car.
Of course the parent is ticked if the child is not buckled in.
Let me pose this question:
Who is at fault if the parent buckles the child in and the seat belt fails in an accident and causes the child's death?
Answer: the manufacturer.
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.
As you noted, I used the word if.†So why should what I say be censored IF others reading this can not comprehend what I am saying? Is that NOT the problem with our education system today; dumbing down the curriculum to the lowest denominator (student)?
I am sure that there are many people reading these comments that are offended by the notion that they can not comprehend what is written. I believe that anyone falling this discussion (for 40-some pages) is intelligent enough to realize that I did not say thimerosal causes autism.â€
That post also addressed the fact that I did NOT review that study thoroughly (to the point where I can comment on it).
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?
Again I am NOT concluding that. READ what I said:
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).
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.
I never made any opinion on the safety of vaccines (YOU made that assumption for me).
I simply applied the legal definition of manslaughter: (Involuntary) manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent.
Whether the person dies from NOT being vaccinated OR as a result of the vaccine, BOTH are an (unlawful) killing of another human being.
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.
Exactly. This is a prime example of a first world problem.
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.
No, anyone reading my words should know that this is not at all what I am saying! And obviously you know that, as you know I am a nurse and therefore wouldn't ever make such a ridiculous statement. You just did what you accused someone else of, that is putting words in my mouth. Please do not twist what I say into something I did NOT say and make it a falsehood. You also took my words out of context, something you accused someone else of doing as well. If you don't like it being done to you, remember to stop yourself from doing it to others!
What I said, and what I said pretty clearly, was that there IS extra time involved in using a multi-dose vial instead of a single-dose vial and by the Likes that post got it was pretty clear to those people what I was saying, even if it was not to you. It is one reason some employers prefer that version of the vaccine.
Nurses are proficient at administering either version of the vaccination, drawing from a multi-use vial or a single-use vial. But there IS the expectation that there will be some waste when exclusively using multi-use vials, as nurses who do this fully understand. And I AM talking about flu-clinics, large scale vaccination clinics, I understood your post completely. But those like yourself who do not do this therefore do not understand the process of preparation, administration and after-waste at the end of the time a drawn vaccine can be used, but I did not think it important to educate on this topic, lol as my point was that there IS a reason why clinics prefer single-use over multi-use!
So once again it isn't because single-use are magically safer but because although there is a small additional expense up front it doesn't equal an additional expense at the end after consideration of all I just said.
In another post, you asked me to list for you studies in which vaccinated children with autism are compared with unvaccinated children with autism and I'm floored at that request as every study that tries and fails at making this autism-MMR connection does this! You really need me to list every study ever done on the topic? If so, how can you be even at Step One in the understanding of how research works? Choose any valid, peer-reviewed and respected study on the topic and there you go!
Thank you, Nursej22, I just clicked on the "gomerblog," and read, with interest, about the two, Mercedes owning, ladies who refused to have their children vaccinated, as they felt that the vaccinations were, or might be, harmful. Yet, these two ladies, could not tolerate a couple of wrinkles and thus, allowed themselves to be injected with botulism! The priorities held by these, now wrinkle free ladies is really astounding. :-( Needless to say, "gomerblog" has a cousin by the name of FOX News Channel.
What you wrote, about ".... two, Mercedes owning, ladies who refused to have their children vaccinated, as they felt that the vaccinations were, or might be, harmful. Yet, these two ladies, could not tolerate a couple of wrinkles and thus, allowed themselves to be injected with botulism! ....", just shows that there are ALL kinds of people, both down to earth, and also vain, who worry about potential adverse side effects of vaccines.
If you were to do a survey, I bet that the botox types of folks are a rare minority, among the thinking parents who don't want their children to take the RISK (too high, in their opinions and research), compared with supposed vaccine benefits (too low, in their opinions and research).
I'll be very interested in hearing reactions by nurses here, who have the courage to watch the film "VAXXED", if and when they do...
My husband just added this: Aren't you glad that you have the CHOICE, at this time, to do or not do "botox" facial treatments, and aren't you also glad that you have the CHOICE to do or not do any medical treatments, includihg vaccination!
My hubby also adds: This CHOICE is all that most anti-vax parents want--namely, the freedom (we are free, here in the USA, right?) to choose whether to vaccinate or not (parents &/or their children). He says parents must be free to choose their medical treatments for themselves, and their children.
He added that if vaccines truly work to protect children and adults, then there should be no worry about vaccinated children and vaccinated adults being exposed to non-vaccinated children & non-vaccinated adults!
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
Nurse Leigh
1,149 Posts
Yes, so many members here are articulate, concise, and able to back up their posts with appropriate studies.
Me, I tend to go for sarcasm and comic relief, and cheering on all y'all smart people.