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?
A pediatrician and prominent critic of the anti-vaccine movement reviews the science behind a controversial new documentary about vaccines and autism.
The real explanation for Vaxxed's revelation†isn't conspiracy or hidden data; it's something else. When compared with their Caucasian counterparts, African-American boys in Atlanta in 1994 were under-vaccinated. In order to qualify for autism-support programs, this subset of under-vaccinated children with autism had to get vaccinated. In other words, it wasn't that MMR had caused autism; it was that the diagnosis of autism had caused them to get MMR. Not surprisingly, this is never explained in the film.
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.
*snort-spits popcorn* Darn it, now I have to make more... Wait, I got involved in this conversation, I think that means I have to give up the popcorn...
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.
The right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins.
If you make a decision, that decision has ramifications regarding what you can and cannot do as a result.
For example, you have the right to not buy auto insurance. That does not mean you have the right to drive uninsured.
You may have the right to not vaccinate your children. That does not mean a school has to take them unvaccinated.
Also, there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong. When you choose not to vaccinate your child, you put your child at risk for harm and you are also putting other people at risk for harm who may have no choice in the matter. I support herd immunity, and I believe the choice not to vaccinate is morally wrong because it harms other people. I'm not necessarily supporting government mandated vaccination, but I believe if you choose not to vaccinate, you have no business fussing if you are not welcome in places that do not accept the increased risk of disease and death that your presence brings.
There has been interesting talk of theoretical cures as an alternative to vaccines (e.g. influenza). Those cures would be medications, and those medications would inevitably have adverse effects. The approval process alone would be dangerous and expensive, and in the end you'd be treating a whole lot of kids who will then suffer those adverse effects, whose parents would then sue because their kids were damaged by the cure, which would probably cost a heck of a lot more than a vaccine or three anyway. I don't see this as a plausible solution.
The right to swing your fist ends where another man's nose begins.
If you make a decision, that decision has ramifications regarding what you can and cannot do as a result.
For example, you have the right to not buy auto insurance. That does not mean you have the right to drive uninsured.
You may have the right to not vaccinate your children. That does not mean a school has to take them unvaccinated.
Also, there is a difference between what is legally wrong and what is morally wrong. When you choose not to vaccinate your child, you put your child at risk for harm and you are also putting other people at risk for harm who may have no choice in the matter. I support herd immunity, and I believe the choice not to vaccinate is morally wrong because it harms other people. I'm not necessarily supporting government mandated vaccination, but I believe if you choose not to vaccinate, you have no business fussing if you are not welcome in places that do not accept the increased risk of disease and death that your presence brings.
There has been interesting talk of theoretical cures as an alternative to vaccines (e.g. influenza). Those cures would be medications, and those medications would inevitably have adverse effects. The approval process alone would be dangerous and expensive, and in the end you'd be treating a whole lot of kids who will then suffer those adverse effects, whose parents would then sue because their kids were damaged by the cure, which would probably cost a heck of a lot more than a vaccine or three anyway. I don't see this as a plausible solution.
— You say you are "not necessarily supporting government mandated vaccination,†but you definitely are NOT supporting choice.
— As to my "theoretical cures†example, notice I said the risks of the cure is less than the risks of the vaccine, negating any dangerous side effects. Furthermore, my examples are used to express simplistically a very complex risk/benefit analysis matrix.
— Then I assume that by YOUR very logic, those IMMUNOCOMPROMISED bringers of death would also not be welcome.
Perhaps we can sequester them in a leper colony?
We have the right (by the nature of being sentient beings) to make mistakes (break the law). There is absolutely NO guarantee of safety, in fact I gan say with 100% ABSOLUTE certainty that everyone is going to die at least once in their lives.
That being said, free will does not abdicate responsibility. In fact, taking the provax model to the extreme, that would abdicate responsibility (as the vax courts do now).
Watch the movie I, Robot (2004) and see where this nanny-government thinking leads us. Let mesh you:
The Three Laws will lead to only one logical outcome.
So where does it stop? How far do we take science? How far can science go?
Again, let me demonstrate from historical fact and science (one example; Darwin's theory of natural selection) that is still accepted today...
Hitler was greatly influenced by the American eugenics movement which included involuntary and compulsory sterilization of the less fit.†He alluded to it along with the anti-Semitic ravings of Henry Ford to defend his ethnic cleansing program.
I do not agree and I do not have sympathy for these killers, but throughout this project I sought to understand the origins of this cruelty, and I wanted to give the same options to the reader. Working through the history and the evolution of the ideas led me to a greater understanding of how the pieces fit together for the German government to successfully complete their large-scale exterminations. The perfect amounts of evil, corruption, madness and brilliance seemed to intertwine and come together to build a functional team of killers.
Note that the paper traces the roots of the Holocaust to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. These practices as applied to animals, dehumanized people by equating them (via the practices) with animals, and later as burdensome consumers.
Pure science does not dispute the fact that the disabled require more resources and produce very little compared to the average (ideal) citizen worker. The mathematical equation justifies this, yet the social, philosophical, spiritual, and common sense states that it is still a human being. (Source: Edwin Black's War Against the Weak about the eugenics movement in the U.S. )
This debate has just recently come up with the speculation by some that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would lead to death panels†(the issue made it to the Supreme Court).
...And before anyone questions the relevancy of the arguments, they are extremely relevant; they all deal with removing one's human right of autonomy justified by the argument of protecting the herd†AND backed by science.
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.
The trust issue is with healthcare as a whole, read the PubMed papers that I linked.
— You say you are "not necessarily supporting government mandated vaccination,†but you definitely are NOT supporting choice.
— As to my "theoretical cures†example, notice I said the risks of the cure is less than the risks of the vaccine, negating any dangerous side effects. Furthermore, my examples are used to express simplistically a very complex risk/benefit analysis matrix.
— Then I assume that by YOUR very logic, those IMMUNOCOMPROMISED bringers of death would also not be welcome.
Perhaps we can sequester them in a leper colony?
We have the right (by the nature of being sentient beings) to make mistakes (break the law). There is absolutely NO guarantee of safety, in fact I gan say with 100% ABSOLUTE certainty that everyone is going to die at least once in their lives.
That being said, free will does not abdicate responsibility. In fact, taking the provax model to the extreme, that would abdicate responsibility (as the vax courts do now).
...And before anyone questions the relevancy of the arguments, they are extremely relevant; they all deal with removing one's human right of autonomy justified by the argument of protecting the herd†AND backed by science.
Believing in right and wrong and believing that actions have consequences do not mean that I am taking anyone's choices away. Laws that exist to prevent you from harming others do not make this a nanny state.
If you do not understand the difference between willfully allowing your child to spread an illness because they may survive it (and if they don't, well, at least they weren't autistic!) and being vulnerable to an illness because you have a physical impairment... oh heck, I'm not sure why I'm still talking.
If you believe that the actions of the Nazi party, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and mandated vaccines for certain high-risk situations (like schools) are comparable (wait a minute, I thought this discussion was about HPV and chemotherapy?), you are either claiming that eugenics and racism are evidence-based practice or that vaccines are total bunk based on hatred and racism. I'm really not sure which.
While I am amazed at the boundless energy of some people on this thread, I do not find illogical arguments enjoyable. I'm going to make more popcorn and sit down.
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.
The warts have been reappearing, but Kosawa is receiving chemotherapy to stop the virus.
Gaspari continues to monitor Kosawa's progress through e-mails and teleconference calls with Indonesian doctors.
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.
Amen! However... I didn't have sex until I was 21. I was afraid it was gonna hurt. LOL That's what I'm telling my 13 year old. That it hurts and that she should wait until she's fully grown. Meaning over 18 and out of my house. Lol
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.
I have NEVER supported Wakefield or his research. The studies I referenced about Tuskegee have conclusively proven their hypothesis. Wakefield acted alone, the Federal Government (who is suppose to protect its citizenry) was complicit in Tuskegee. Furthermore there are NO studies that I am aware of that show Wakefield eroded trust in the healthcare system so much so that generations of people avoid healthcare altogether. If I missed those studies, please link them.
I am consistently surprised by the claptrap that, otherwise intelligent, people will go along with. I find an anecdotal connection to people who feel constricted by the conventions of 1st world society. Having no choice but to pay for water, and land tax and bank fees and health insurance and petrol and, and, and.... the most common argument I hear from them is that they feel they should be able to "make a choice", my response that I expect them to make a responsible and informed choice usually only gets their hackles raised and their stubborn streak reinforced. Many don't believe me when I inform them that the ONE researcher who found a correlation between Vaccines and Autism has been found to be incorrect. Stating it just proves that the conspiracy is working. I don't know how to convince them, so I leave them to wallow in their ignorance and hope it's not their children that suffer for it.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN
11,305 Posts
I took a vaccine history class from (my hero) Dr. Paul Offit. I just read his review of the movie.
Anti-Vaccine Doc 'Vaxxed': A Doctor's Film Review - Hollywood Reporter