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'm not a conservative Christian and I teach my kids abstinence as well.
Both boys still got Gardasil.
AFAIC, PUBERTY "promotes" pre marital teen sex.
It is always a good idea to tell teenagers that they aren't mature enough for sex. I talked to my kids about real-world consequences of a sexual nature . . . remember that full-sized poster from public health with close-up views of STD's that I shared with my now adult kids?
My 14 year old gets "the full monty" as did his siblings, regarding their bodies, their urges, and sex. I'm no sissy. I tell it like it is.
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.
Exactly; just like the industry that has sprung up around (many) women's fear of breast cancer.
Also following. These kind of topics seem to draw a weird crowd, though...
That is because it is a weird crowd who believes this stuff. The rest of us following are just trying to figure out how to get people to believe in the benefits of vaccines. It is sad that people are so desperate to find reasons to blame for their children's' medical issues that they grab on to the vaccine conspiracy garbage. They would be better served to work with legit research groups and raise money for research that could lead to cures.
Banterings - there's plenty of real dirt to shovel on Big Pharma, et al., but vaccines aren't part of it.
It bothers me that you're using the same disinformation tactics to push your pov that they use to get away with their fraud.
Come to think of it, the alternative healthcare industry isn't exactly pure as the driven snow, either. Maybe that explains it.
So what did I say about Big Pharma that is not fact? My opinion?
What disinformation?
I have stated what aspects are my opinion and I back up my statements with either research, historical fact (the Earth thought to be flat), or scientific effects (i.e. reactance). I also admit when I don't have enough information to opine (studies).
In order for me to respond, please be specific and use quotes.
Your statement comparing me to the antivax crowd's fraud implies that my views are fraudulent. Since my views are based upon human dignity, AM I to ASSUME that you oppose the concept of human dignity (or parts of it)? Please clarify your statements.
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.
While the federal manslaughter statute is a starting point for understanding how the law affects medical practice, it's primarily case law that defines this legally since just like many statutes, it's just a broad base that case law is based on. It's telling that you don't find a legal description of the case law that governs medical negligence and resulting criminal charges to be useful just because it includes the views and case law both for and against the use of criminal charges in medical negligence, and instead prefer to ignore the more relevant evidence provided in favor of less relevant information. There's many more descriptions of the legal state of medical negligence and criminal charges: When Does Medical Malpractice Become Criminal? | Fox News feel free to take your pick.
As you seem to recognize, there are instances where someone dies as a result of medical intervention that aren't subject to criminal charges and there are others that are subject to criminal charges, what do think the difference is between those situations?
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.
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:
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.
I agree that the bolded part of your post is what this all hinges on, the question is whether ignoring all of the available evidence is how we avoid "blind trust", or is that the balance of evidence that protects us from acting blindly.
I agree that the bolded part of your post is what this all hinges on, the question is whether ignoring all of the available evidence is how we avoid "blind trust", or is that the balance of evidence that protects us from acting blindly.
Look at other issues of trust, like the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Nobody would argue the benefits of law enforcement in our society, so why the protests?
Lack of trust.
Same for vaccines. You need to have the trust of the public. Obviously there is a reason that there is no trust.
Your dismissive attitude on the limited events that I mention (like Tuskegee) do not help build trust either. That event has repercussions to this day. To imply that someone's decision not to vax due to trust issues (or to recognize the bearing that trust has on the profession), and imply that it is a lack of intelligence only adds insult to injury.
The whole discipline that we call marketing has shown people will support inferior products when they trust in the product/manufacturer. Trust does not come simply because one has a stethoscope around their neck. Look at the problems the clergy has with trust. Trust is extremely fragile and often dismissed.
The irony of discussing the Tuskagee trials related to the mistrust of vaccines while overlooking the forefather of the anti vaccine movement and the producer of the movie in question having his medical license revoked for designing and conducting a trial which abused children by not following the ethical rules that came from the Tuskagee trials.
Look at other issues of trust, like the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Nobody would argue the benefits of law enforcement in our society, so why the protests?
Lack of trust.
Same for vaccines. You need to have the trust of the public. Obviously there is a reason that there is no trust.
Your dismissive attitude on the limited events that I mention (like Tuskegee) do not help build trust either. That event has repercussions to this day. To imply that someone's decision not to vax due to trust issues (or to recognize the bearing that trust has on the profession), and imply that it is a lack of intelligence only adds insult to injury.
The whole discipline that we call marketing has shown people will support inferior products when they trust in the product/manufacturer. Trust does not come simply because one has a stethoscope around their neck. Look at the problems the clergy has with trust. Trust is extremely fragile and often dismissed.
Lack of trust is a big issue. But, I do not see it as a lack of intelligence, implied or not. It is ignorance. As nurses, we can try to fix the latter. That is why we find it so frustrating. There is scientific proof backing up vaccinating children.
Then, Wakefield comes back, making claims that have no backing in fact, and proclaiming there is a cover up in the CDC, just to sensationalize the story. He is feeding on the fear the parents have, and in doing so, is destroying what trust there is for healthcare providers.
I, personally, see the film as a deliberate slap in the face from Wakefield. All the film is going to do, is cost the lives of innocent children because their parents were unable to make an informed decision based in facts. Thank goodness, there is only one theater who is showing the movie.
Wakefield is a charlatan. My guess is he made this movie purely for monetary gain, not out of altruism. He lost his livelihood due to his fraud and he has to pay the bills somehow.
And Banterings, I wouldn't say there is no trust of vaccines. The majority of parents still vaccinate. However, the number that do tends to dip when the anti-vaxxers come out of the woodwork and start spreading their pseudoscience nonsense. They rely on sensationalization and fear to further their agenda. It hurts everyone.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
as did his siblings, regarding their bodies, their urges, and sex. I'm no sissy. I tell it like it is. 
Farawyn
12,646 Posts
I'm not a conservative Christian and I teach my kids abstinence as well.
Both boys still got Gardasil.
AFAIC, PUBERTY "promotes" pre marital teen sex.