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?
Follow up: I am genuinely saddened to have just heard of his passing. And he suffered so much, not just from his disease. He died about 2 months ago of a complicated series of health problems, including hepatitis, liver and gastric disorders. The growths had also returned.
The growths and the complications were due to a very rare and severe immunodeficiency disease (genetic flaw in the immune system that protects you from infections). God bless him.
Whether or not "the death was unlawful or not" when it comes to patients who die as a result of medical interventions is actually based on a risk/benefit analysis and can also be based on other factors. To stick with the same example, bypass surgery is not illegal, but if a physician performs this intervention and there is adverse harm to the patient and the patient didn't actually need bypass surgery, then they can potentially be charged with manslaughter and similar examples have happened before. But given the same scenario where it had sufficient potential to benefit the patient then there is no basis for manslaughter charges because there was no criminal negligence.
The federal statute is a good start to understanding the relationship of negligence, adverse events, and criminal charges such as manslaughter but there's much more to it than that, here's a more in depth legal explanation:
I quite agree with you on the point that death as a result of vaccination is NOT manslaughter, AND this also supports the fact that death as a result of exposure to someone unvaccinated is also NOT manslaughter.
In the latter, if the person who died was vaccinated, then the unvaccinated person (who infected the deceased) has the defense (IF charged with manslaughter) that the person responsible for the death is either the person who prescribed/administered the vaccination (which did not protect the deceased),
If the deceased was unvaccinated, the deceased assumed the risk of being unvaccinated. It is also possible that the person spreading the infection could be vaccinated, so if they caused a death, they would have to be held equally culpable as if they were unvaccinated (under equal protection).
All this without even mentioning people who are immunocompromised...
As for the link you offered, this is not a good source at all for understanding the federal manslaughter statute. The whole purpose of the article is to show "criminal medical negligence should not be applied to health care professionals.†(Quote from the 15th paragraph.) This article attempts to further absolve healthcare providers of liability from other procedures in the same manner that the Vaccine Claims Office of Special Masters has done with vaccines.
OCNRN63 is a certified Oncology RN among other things.
I don't understand the point you're attempting to make. Or if you even are trying to make a point?
...I'm still not sure why you posted the link to the Daily Telegraph article in a thread about the film "Vaxxed". The HPV vaccine Gardasil (since this thread is about vaccines) protects against certain strains of HPV. It doesn't offer protection against the strains most often implicated in HPV skin infections in p.
Let me recap the latter pages of this thread and how we got here;
The treatment of rabies (mistakenly as tetorifice initially) and Jethro Kloss (which was not started by me). The treatment for rabies was hyperthermia and I made the comment, Side effects include foaming at the mouth...â€
It reminded me of the old west†treatment for VD (as seen in the movie Cat Ballou). I also made a reference to risk/benefit analysis of Doxycycline (not a preventive vaccine) versus the old west cure of the red hot poker.†(Humor implied.)
That also lead me to a cure for HPV (Gardasil has had it's own controversy, not sure if it is addressed in Vaxxed or not), and as the last time I looked at Dede's case, the chemo was (at the time) successful.
This conversation has focussed on the autism aspect of the risk/benefit analysis of vaccines. Part of that analysis includes the ability to cure (alleviate symptoms) of diseases vaccines treat, and the quality of life when infected by the disease. The bearing that cures have on this discussion is that (THEORETICALLY) if we had a pill that efficiently, quickly, and safely treated influenza, the issue of autism (thimerosal) would become a moot point being that the vaccine would be (potentially) less safe the cure.
Let me point out an anthropological reason for the antivax movement, one that runs much deeper and were caused by the healthcare system before she ever came in for a consultation.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study continues to cast its long shadow on the contemporary relationship between African Americans and the biomedical community. Numerous reports have argued that the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is the most important reason why many African Americans distrust the institutions of medicine and public health. Such an interpretation neglects a critical historical point: the mistrust predated public revelations about the Tuskegee study. This paper places the syphilis study within a broader historical and social context to demonstrate that several factors have influenced--and continue to influence--African American's attitudes toward the biomedical community.
This study focused on African Americans and how it has caused mistrust of healthcare. The study, Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies†found that Tuskegee has affected other racial groups, including whites:
Exploring the Legacy†of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Follow-up Study From the Tuskegee Legacy Project concluded that Eighty-one percent of African Americans and 28% of whites had knowledge of the Tuskegee Study. Knowledge of the Tuskegee Study resulted in less trust of researchers for 51% of African-Americans and 17% of whites. Forty-six percent of African-Americans and 34% of whites indicated that their knowledge of the study would affect future research participation decisions. Of these, 49% of African-Americans and 17% of whites would not be willing to participate in future medical research studies.
If anyone has ever worked with Southern African Americans, you will know that there is a deep mistrust of the healthcare system (and with good reason). This ended in 1972, and I am sure there are some on here that were already in medical school by then.
Just in case you think Tuskegee was an isolated incident, let me remind you of incidents that have eroded the population's trust in the healthcare system: Involuntary sterilizations (California), lobotomies, and most recently physicians complicit with the CIA in torching prisoners.
I am not going to list others, but it would be irresponsible for anyone to blindly trust anything (financial advice, legal advice, etc.) without asking questions.
This conversation has focussed on the autism aspect of the risk/benefit analysis of vaccines. Part of that analysis includes the ability to cure (alleviate symptoms) of diseases vaccines treat, and the quality of life when infected by the disease. The bearing that cures have on this discussion is that (THEORETICALLY) if we had a pill that efficiently, quickly, and safely treated influenza, the issue of autism (thimerosal) would become a moot point being that the vaccine would be (potentially) less safe the cure.
The more you post, the more difficult it is to imagine that you actually do anything in any professional capacity in healthcare.
A) There is no "autism aspect of the risk/benefit analysis of vaccines," since there is no actual evidence of any connection whatsoever between autism and vaccines. It is a "moot point" now, regardless of the hypothetical availability of a "cure" for flu.
B) The risks associated with vaccines would have to be pretty darned high in order for any reasonable person who actually is a healthcare professional to feel that getting a disease and being treated for it would be preferable to being vaccinated against a disease. There are too many risks associated with potential complications, treatments, hospitalization (if necessary), etc., etc., etc.
I quite agree with you on the point that death as a result of vaccination is NOT manslaughter, AND this also supports the fact that death as a result of exposure to someone unvaccinated is also NOT manslaughter.
In the latter, if the person who died was vaccinated, then the unvaccinated person (who infected the deceased) has the defense (IF charged with manslaughter) that the person responsible for the death is either the person who prescribed/administered the vaccination (which did not protect the deceased),
If the deceased was unvaccinated, the deceased assumed the risk of being unvaccinated. It is also possible that the person spreading the infection could be vaccinated, so if they caused a death, they would have to be held equally culpable as if they were unvaccinated (under equal protection).
All this without even mentioning people who are immunocompromised...
As for the link you offered, this is not a good source at all for understanding the federal manslaughter statute. The whole purpose of the article is to show "criminal medical negligence should not be applied to health care professionals.†(Quote from the 15th paragraph.) This article attempts to further absolve healthcare providers of liability from other procedures in the same manner that the Vaccine Claims Office of Special Masters has done with vaccines.
Regarding bolded sentence: most vaccine debates are not about adults who can make (or attempt to make) informed decisions regarding their own healthcare. Defending anti-vaxxers right to make that choice is like saying you shouldn't have to buckle your child's seat belt because being a passenger in a car is perfectly safe when you're not in an accident.
Seat belt use is regulated by law, and it is a crime for you not to use one on your child. This is because the risk of getting hurt by a restraint is much lower than the risk of harm if you don't use one. And yet, unlike vaccines, keeping yourself and your child unbuckled in your own car does not increase the risk that other drivers will get hurt. Choosing not to vaccinate DOES put both the unvaccinated and others at risk.
This conversation has focussed on the autism aspect of the risk/benefit analysis of vaccines.
Well yes, because this thread is about the film "Vaxxed" which attempts to perpetuate Wakefield's false, debunked MMRvaccine-autism link.
That also lead me to a cure for HPV (Gardasil has had it's own controversy, not sure if it is addressed in Vaxxed or not)
Anyone who's treated a thirty-year-old woman dying from metastasized cervical cancer will likely not find Gardasil very controversial. It's a lifesaver.
the last time I looked at Dede's case, the chemo was (at the time) successful.
What type of chemotherapy would you use to treat a HPV infection in a patient afflicted by epidermodysplasia verruciformis? Alkalyting agents, antimetabolites, antracyclines, topoisomerase inhibitors or mitotic inhibitors? I'm having trouble visualizing the mechanism of action of this class of drugs on a viral infection.
Specifically, which chemotherapy drug was Dede treated with? I can't find the details online despite looking for it.
Part of that analysis includes the ability to cure (alleviate symptoms) of diseases vaccines treat, and the quality of life when infected by the disease.
Cure and alleviate symptoms are two entirely different things, but I assume you know that.
As previously mentioned neither quadrivalent nor 9-valent Gardasil cover the HPV strains commonly associated with HPV skin infections in patients who have the genetic hereditary disorder that Dede seemed to have suffered from. So I still don't understand why this is pertinent to our vaccine discussion.
The bearing that cures have on this discussion is that (THEORETICALLY) if we had a pill that efficiently, quickly, and safely treated influenza, the issue of autism (thimerosal) would become a moot point being that the vaccine would be (potentially) less safe the cure.
You seem to be tap dancing around the issue vaccines/autism. You've repeatedly claimed that you are not anti-vaccine, but as far as I've seen you haven't declared a position in the matter.
Do you agree that the benefits of for example the MMR vaccine clearly outweigh the potential risk of side effects/adverse reactions?
Do you agree that after reviewing the large amounts of available research, autism isn't an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine?
Do you agree that it's a good idea, barring medical contraindications, for parents to have their children vaccinated with the MMR vaccine?
I have to admit I still don't follow the logic of your post, but I appreciate your attempt to clear it up for me.
One final thought. I wish you hadn't posted the picture of the man Dede in this thread. I cant imagine that someone who by all accounts must have led a very difficult life, would want to be "commemorated" this way, in a thread where people are arguing back and forth about fraudulent former doctors and the benefits of vaccines. Just my 2 cents.
The more you post, the more difficult it is to imagine that you actually do anything in any professional capacity in healthcare.
A) There is no "autism aspect of the risk/benefit analysis of vaccines," since there is no actual evidence of any connection whatsoever between autism and vaccines. It is a "moot point" now, regardless of the hypothetical availability of a "cure" for flu.
B) The risks associated with vaccines would have to be pretty darned high in order for any reasonable person who actually is a healthcare professional to feel that getting a disease and being treated for it would be preferable to being vaccinated against a disease. There are too many risks associated with potential complications, treatments, hospitalization (if necessary), etc., etc., etc.
A) Risks both real and perceived are equally as dangerous. For example, if people were to believe vaccines were unsafe (when fact they were safe), would this not pose a major risk (such as people avoiding vaccines)? So it is NOT a moot point.
B) It is this line of thinking that is pushing women to get radical bilateral mastectomy (Angelina Jolie) when they are only at increased risk.
In both instances you are looking at the issues from a micro perspective. I look at things in the aggregate (macro perspective).
I, too, am appalled by the willingness of seemingly well educated people to accept this "pseudo-scientific" opinion. I am a Health Office Nurse in a very affluent school in Northern California. Most of the parents are well-educated, successful, and dedicated to the well-being of their children. However, when approached about the need for immunizations to enter the child in school, a few parents will come just short of calling me stupid, or uninformed as to the "dangers" of this requirement! Seriously people! Let's make a movie about the dangers of NOT vaccinating our children! We can use accurate and truthful statistics to show the consequences of NOT vaccinating!
Anyone who's treated a thirty-year-old woman dying from metastasized cervical cancer will likely not find Gardasil very controversial. It's a lifesaver.
No, two of the controversies are parents feeling that it promotes premarital sex with their children and a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit.
What type of chemotherapy would you use to treat a HPV infection in a patient afflicted by epidermodysplasia verruciformis? Alkalyting agents, antimetabolites, antracyclines, topoisomerase inhibitors or mitotic inhibitors? I'm having trouble visualizing the mechanism of action of this class of drugs on a viral infection.
Specifically, which chemotherapy drug was Dede treated with? I can't find the details online despite looking for it.
Cure and alleviate symptoms are two entirely different things, but I assume you know that.
The goal of medicine it the alleviation of suffering.†As in a previous statement, I mention a micro view and macro view, and in a very simplistic view of healthcare, I offer this: Nurses tend to have a more (for lack of better terms) a micro view as they carry out physicians' orders.†Physicians have more of a macro view (again , lack of better term) as they diagnose, prescribe, and treat.
As previously mentioned neither quadrivalent nor 9-valent Gardasil cover the HPV strains commonly associated with HPV skin infections in patients who have the genetic hereditary disorder that Dede seemed to have suffered from. So I still don't understand why this is pertinent to our vaccine discussion.
See my previous post on a recap of these last pages and how we got here...
You seem to be tap dancing around the issue vaccines/autism. You've repeatedly claimed that you are not anti-vaccine, but as far as I've seen you haven't declared a position in the matter.
I have previously stated that I am pro-choice.
You can argue how much proof is enough, but the fact remains that issues such as these are a matter of what we think we know†(as opposed to what we know). The one thing that remains indisputable are our God human rights and dignity. That includes the right of every human being to live autonomously, and choose the life that they fits their goals and beliefs.
Before you attempt a straw man argument to say how an unvaxxed person violates your rights, I will point out the fallacy of this argument from a philosophical, and ethical stand point.
First when one person or group imposes something upon another person or group, all individuals the dominant group must equally and individually assume liability for those decisions imposed on others, which is NEVER the case.
Second, freedom and autonomy trump all. For example, murder (unjustified) is wrong, and banned in our society. No one would argue either point. Yet, we are not located away to prevent that. Every individual is free to commit murder, BUT they will be held responsible for those actions.
There is no guarantee of safety or security in our society, only the guarantee of FREEDOM.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. — Benjamin Franklin
Do you agree that the benefits of for example the MMR vaccine clearly outweigh the potential risk of side effects/adverse reactions?
Generally I think their benefits outweigh the risks for most people (one cannot argue that the diseases they prevent have just about been eradicated), but I am not out if the schedule is safe and/or correct. I still believe that each person should have choice. I also do not how safe thimerosal (by itself) is, such as at higher levels of exposure. I also do not trust big corporations. (Just look what big health corp has done to staff levels.)
Do you agree that after reviewing the large amounts of available research, autism isn't an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine?
There is NOT large amounts of research out there, AND of what there is, I have not reviewed a (relatively) large amount of it.
Do you agree that it's a good idea, barring medical contraindications, for parents to have their children vaccinated with the MMR vaccine?
I thin it is a BETTER idea that parents be allowed to raise their children as they see fit. Beyond autonomy being a human right, there is the issues of future agency†and reactance."
One final thought. I wish you hadn't posted the picture of the man Dede in this thread. I cant imagine that someone who by all accounts must have led a very difficult life, would want to be "commemorated" this way, in a thread where people are arguing back and forth about fraudulent former doctors and the benefits of vaccines. Just my 2 cents.
Here is how I like to remember him. Smiling, happy, and hopeful (to the end as per the nurses who cared for him).
The reason that I posted that pic is in a response to Farawyn, RN's comment, "banterings, re, HPV; have you taken chemo? Why subject yourself to that?"
I believe that that particular photo of him answered that particular question.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
banterings
278 Posts
OCNRN63,
I am assuming that you are familiar with the case and know why chemo for HPV,†am I correct in this assumption?
Why????
Because it is better than living like this (read this article):
Follow up: I am genuinely saddened to have just heard of his passing. And he suffered so much, not just from his disease. He died about 2 months ago of a complicated series of health problems, including hepatitis, liver and gastric disorders. The growths had also returned.
The growths and the complications were due to a very rare and severe immunodeficiency disease (genetic flaw in the immune system that protects you from infections). God bless him.