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?
This bugs me too... Nevermind that if I eradicated polio, I'd hope to make a living off of it... I sure as heck hope that the brilliant folks who are creating safe and effective preventative medication are making money!
I've already looked at the link that you provided. Nowhere in it does it state that Dr. Gaspari treated Dede with chemotherapy. Since the only suggestion you have is that I contact the dermatologist and ask him myself, I can only assume that you have failed to find (just as I have) any evidence from a credible medical source corroborating the story in The Daily Telegraph.
See my previous post on a recap of these last pages and how we got here...
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.
I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm questioning why Dede's case is relevant to the question about childhood vaccines. To me posting about his case makes as much sense as if you'd for example posted that drug x or treatment y cures osteogenesis imperfecta. Why would that be relevant when we do not have a vaccine available for osteogenesis imperfecta?? We don't vaccinate against the strains of HPV that this man was likely affected by.
What makes your example even less relevant is that it's seems impossible to support the claim you and the British tabloid make that the man recieved successful treatment with chemotherapy, from any medical sources.
Furthermore, you are theorizing about efficient, quick and safe treatment as viable alternatives to vaccines that you posit might be "less safe than the cure". Do you realize exactly how dangerous a vaccine would have to be, before chemotherapy became the better option of the two?
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.
Make no mistake, I knew exactly which controversy you were alluding to. It is my opinion that a parent's desire to control their child's future sexuality shouldn't be a factor when it comes to minimizing the risk of that child developing a devastating cancer.
I think that the whole argument that Gardasil promotes premarital sex is weak anyway. If the risk of pregnancy and STDs which could happen in the short timeframe isn't enough to make a young person practice safe sex, then the risk of cancer ten, twenty or thirty years down the road probably won't have much of an impact on a person's behavior. No, to me it's parents who wish to exercise control over their childrens lives. That's why I said that from a medical standpoint, there is no controversy. If a vaccine can reduce the risk of developing a life-threatening condition, it's in my opinion a good thing.
Off-topic posts have, again, been removed. Please keep your posts on the topic of the original post. Further off-topic posting will result in infraction points and/or thread closure.
This bugs me too... Nevermind that if I eradicated polio, I'd hope to make a living off of it... I sure as heck hope that the brilliant folks who are creating safe and effective preventative medication are making money!
I agree - they deserve a fair profit and a comfortable living. It's the price gouging that gets to me. I'm both a consumer and a provider of alternative healthcare ... and I'm here to tell ya that there's just as much profiteering in the alternative care industry as any giant hospital chain or multinational pharmaceutical firm.
I believe there are people turning a tidy profit by keeping the autism panic alive. Well-meaning but fuzzy-thinking anti-vaxxers are playing right into it. Meanwhile, personal injury lawyers and peddlers of alternative "treatment" are laughing all the way to the bank.
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)
Nope. Protected by EBP.
If the deceased was unvaccinated, the deceased assumed the risk of being unvaccinated.
Correct (we will come back to this).
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.
Nope. Again, EBP
Now, under the definition of manslaughter, and court precedence, a caregiver can be charged with manslaughter by negligence when they withhold what is beneficial for that person as proclaimed by EBP. A caregiver can be a healthcare provider, court appointed legal guardian, or... a legal parent.
Every individual is free to commit murder, BUT they will be held responsible for those actions.
I could not agree more with this statement. It is the preface for when I first brought this up. You have the privilege to choose to not vaccinate your child, but you should also be prepared to accept the responsibility of that choice.
Now, since a 15-month old is unable to make the choice, legally, to be vaccinated, it falls upon the child's parents to make that decision as the child's caregivers. That would mean, if a DA was given this case, he would, under the current law, be able to prosecute the parents for not doing what is EBP in regards to vaccination.
I think that the whole argument that Gardasil promotes premarital sex is weak anyway. If the risk of pregnancy and STDs which could happen in the short timeframe isn't enough to make a young person practice safe sex, then the risk of cancer ten, twenty or thirty years down the road probably won't have much of an impact on a person's behavior
I agree, and I'm a conservative Christian who does teach her kids abstinence until marriage. Gardisil prevents cervical CA by preventing certain strains of HPV. It doesn't prevent all strains, and it certainly doesn't prevent other STIs, including the big BBPs HIV and hep C. Nor does it prevent PID r/t an STI which can affect her fertility, prevent pregnancy. Plus, very importantly in my view, it doesn't change what the Bible says about sex, or prevent the heartache I suffered from a promiscuous stage pre-Jesus, with all these men who didn't care a blink about me.
I think that the whole argument that Gardasil promotes premarital sex is weak anyway. If the risk of pregnancy and STDs which could happen in the short timeframe isn't enough to make a young person practice safe sex, then the risk of cancer ten, twenty or thirty years down the road probably won't have much of an impact on a person's behavior
I agree, and I'm a conservative Christian who does teach her kids abstinence until marriage. Gardisil prevents cervical CA by preventing certain strains of HPV. It doesn't prevent all strains, and it certainly doesn't prevent other STIs, including the big BBPs HIV and hep C. Nor does it prevent PID r/t an STI which can affect her fertility, prevent pregnancy. Plus, very importantly in my view, it doesn't change what the Bible says about sex, or prevent the heartache I suffered from a promiscuous stage pre-Jesus, with all these men who didn't care a blink about me.
Adding (since I was posting while distracted and forgot): Even if my dtrs are virgins on their wedding night, no guarantee their husbands are. Also, virgins and monogamous married women do get raped.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
ShaneTeam
201 Posts
Please stay on topic.