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 never made any opinion on the safety of vaccines (YOU made that assumption for me).
I only repeated your scenario of a child who dies from adverse effects of a vaccine, I added no other assumptions, only what you specifically stated.
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.
That's not actually the definition of manslaughter when it comes to medical treatment, death that results from criminal negligence in treatment is subject to potential manslaughter charges. If a patient has an overall better potential for benefit relative to risks from bypass surgery, and the patient dies as a result of the risks then the surgeon isn't charged with manslaughter. If the patient didn't actually need bypass surgery, and therefore there was only potential risk and the patient dies then that is potentially prosecutable as manslaughter, and physicians have been charged with manslaughter in the past for such situations.
So since whether or not it's manslaughter depends on the risk to benefit balance that the intervention was based on, for it to be manslaughter either way would require there to be no clear benefit to vaccines vs risk, which is why I asked if you felt that was true and what you're basing that on.
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
Hi Chessie,
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!
Do you realize that gomer blog and the scenario you quoted is satire and PURE FICTION?
Thank you for that info! I admit that I fell for the comment (Your comment shows it was fiction--thank you!) that 2 rich moms supposedly preferred to get their faces botoxed, rather than get their children vaccinated).
Phew! Glad it was fiction! :-)
-------
Hi Farawyn,
No, hubby is not a nurse, but I didn't want to pretend to share ideas that were his. And he doesn't ever get a flu shot, since he has learned about the high risk/benefit ratio (too much risk, not enough benefit) of flu shots.
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.
l]
Cite your source for the statistical history you mention above.
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.
Your post is in response to the questions I asked in my OP:
"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?"
After reading the seven points that you made in your reply to me I have to assume that you went option two. Some patients base their decisions on false information, misconceptions and fear and there's not a whole lot that we as healthcare professionals can do about it. If best evidence-based practice won't convince them, I don't know what will.
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!
I question the accuracy of those numbers. Have you gotten them from Dr. Bob Sears?
I'm sure that you're aware that no cause-and-effect relationship has to have been established in order for an event to be reported to the VAERS database as a suspected vaccine effect?
So your claim of 4,000 cases of proven vaccine-related serious disbility or deaths per year is incorrect.
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.
Many might feel but many also happen to be quite mistaken.
Millions and millions have historically died from infectious diseases. In some parts of the world many of these diseases still kill on a large scale.
When an infectious disease becomes very rare or is eliminated, individuals tend to underestimate the threat it poses because they don't commonly see its effects. Many infectious diseases that anti-vaccine folks don't fear are rare or eliminated locally because of vaccines. If vaccination rates drops, herd immunity will be lost and outbreaks will occur. As I've said before, when the disease becomes sufficiently prevalent, people in firstworld countries will once again learn to fear these diseases.
A side note. Tetorifice is an awful disease and I don't know why any rational person would decline the vaccine which offers very good protection. When I saw the posted portrait several pages back depicting the soldier afflicted by tetorifice it literally made me physically ill. It brought back some bad memories. I have seen two cases of neonatal tetorifice (in an African country).
C. tetani will block the release of inhibitory neurotransmitters so that they can't produce inhibitors that would bind to receptors on excited neurons. The role of the inhibitor would be to prevent the neuron from releasing acetylcholine, thus relaxing the (skeletal) muscle. Because of the presense of the toxins associated with C. tetani there is nothing to stop the neuron from continuing to release the acetylcholine responsible for muscular contraction.
Tetorifice leads to prolonged states of muscular contractions, powerful enough to break bones, rupture tendons and cause respiratory failure. (As well as autonomic dysfunction and cardiovascular instability). Generalized tetorifice (the most common type) is often fatal. (~30%). (Neonatal tetorifice is often the result of the umbilical cord being cut with an unsterile instrument and has a much higher mortality rate).
I only repeated your scenario of a child who dies from adverse effects of a vaccine, I added no other assumptions, only what you specifically stated.
That's not actually the definition of manslaughter when it comes to medical treatment, death that results from criminal negligence in treatment is subject to potential manslaughter charges. If a patient has an overall better potential for benefit relative to risks from bypass surgery, and the patient dies as a result of the risks then the surgeon isn't charged with manslaughter. If the patient didn't actually need bypass surgery, and therefore there was only potential risk and the patient dies then that is potentially prosecutable as manslaughter, and physicians have been charged with manslaughter in the past for such situations.
So since whether or not it's manslaughter depends on the risk to benefit balance that the intervention was based on, for it to be manslaughter either way would require there to be no clear benefit to vaccines vs risk, which is why I asked if you felt that was true and what you're basing that on.
Manslaughter is NOT based on risk/benefit analysis, it is based on whether the death was unlawful or not. It is lawful both to vaccinate and NOT to vaccinate, therefore the deaths are not manslaughter. That was the purpose of my comparison; showing how the unvaccinated is not manslaughter.
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
Specializes in Med/Surg, OR, Peds, Patient Education.
Hi Chessie,
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!
I am "pro Choice" on much in life, but when that "Choice" endangers others, I am not "Pro Choice." As has been stated, numerous times on the All Nurses site, children and adults who are immunosupressed, and babies, too young to receive vaccinations are put at risk for contracting life threatening diseases if vaccinations are left to choice. As previously stated by others as well by me, many pediatricians and other doctors will not accept patient who refuse vaccinations Schools usually do not accept students who have not had all the required vaccinations. The "herd immunity" protects vulnerable populations.
The only theater showing "Vaxxed" is in NYC, and that is too far and too expensive a trip for me to go to view the film.
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.
The back end costs of single dose can be significant, such as storage, waste disposal, etc. The specific situation that I defined is a facility's free vaccine clinic. In this situation, the number of unused doses would be minimal as compared to keeping multi-dose in a setting geared for patients that are not employees.
For that reason of the unused doses being minimal, the only other possible source of waste would be user error.†I too agree that nurses who regularly administer injectables are proficient at doing that, so I was scratching my head on that.
The vaccination setting that I describe, prediction of vaccine use will have a extremely high confidence level (96th percentile) being that the percentage that choose the facility's free vaccines versus those that chose their own provider will remain very consistent from year to year barring any major staffing changes.
Now that the waste of unused doses is taken out of the equation, the increase in storage (space, handling, etc.) combined with the exponential increase of medical waste.
The costs associated with reconstitution syringes (cost of syringe itself, disposal) go down as number of doses per vial goes up, and cost associated with single dose significantly offsets any additional multi dose costs.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
I only repeated your scenario of a child who dies from adverse effects of a vaccine, I added no other assumptions, only what you specifically stated.
That's not actually the definition of manslaughter when it comes to medical treatment, death that results from criminal negligence in treatment is subject to potential manslaughter charges. If a patient has an overall better potential for benefit relative to risks from bypass surgery, and the patient dies as a result of the risks then the surgeon isn't charged with manslaughter. If the patient didn't actually need bypass surgery, and therefore there was only potential risk and the patient dies then that is potentially prosecutable as manslaughter, and physicians have been charged with manslaughter in the past for such situations.
So since whether or not it's manslaughter depends on the risk to benefit balance that the intervention was based on, for it to be manslaughter either way would require there to be no clear benefit to vaccines vs risk, which is why I asked if you felt that was true and what you're basing that on.