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 have to agree with Rocknurse about freedom of choice related to vaccines. I don't understand why pro-vaccers are so militant - I have heard people say that anti vaccers should be sterilised, their children taken away, have the parents thrown in jail - why? It just does not seem logical.
Here is the argument I have gotten. Perhaps you can enlighten me. An unvaccinated child contracts, say chickenpox, but goes to school before diagnosis. According to my classmates, that child is a danger to their classmates who were previously vaccinated. Why? Should not their vaccination give them immunity from chickenpox? Logically, it will affect the child, but only pass on minor effects, if any to the previously vaccinated children. Yet people I know say, "the should call defax, parents arrested, waivers made of no value," and other such things. Why?
I know that there are some vaccines that have helped humanity, but the majority that are pushed today, I simply cannot agree to. If I had to move out of country to raise my children normally without getting arrested for "negligence", or other such nonsense, then so be it.
Also, just to bite, anti vaccers are not anti-science. We look at research studies that are just not popular because they might change people's minds about the medical system. Don't get upset, its fun to debate!
Because vaccines don't have 100% efficacy. They may be close but not 100% means there is risk of catching it. It's also possible that the exposed child ends up bringing it home to his too-young-to-vac siblings or to their too-sick-to-vac family members. Vaccination is a community effort.
To answer the second half of your question, what should the health care workers response be?
For some reason the non-compliance with standard vaccination recommendations pushes emotional buttons in health care workers like no other. The average American parent and/or adult citizen has many harmful habits that threaten their health. Sugar consumption, obesity, drinking, even tobacco use doesn't seem to bring out mobs with torches like the vaccine issue.
I personally know some activax folks, they are all highly health conscious people. They feel as if they are a minority whose rights of self determination for themselves and their families is threatened. Therefore, some of them are going underground and avoiding the medical establishment entirely.
I don't think this is optimal. Do we do this to people with poor food choices? No, probably because many of us also are addicted to sugar and junk food.
I think we need to nurture relationships of trust with all patients, even those whose choices differ from ours. Healthcare should have an open door policy to all. We need to always compromise ourselves to the patient's philosophical outlook, just like be do with cultural differences.
I don't disagree that it is important to foster rapport to develop trust and willingness to listen, and suggesting parents should be sterilized or their children removed is absolutely abhorrent. That being said, vaccination is a public health issue that none of the others come close to. Possibly smoking? And that was banned indoors in most states that I know of. What about 'freedom of choice' for smokers to smoke inside? They can't because other people didn't sign up for the risks of exposure to second and third hand smoke. Well, vaccination is an even bigger public health issue, as before vaccinations, incidence and morbidity of those diseases was high! Mortality went down after better infrastructure/medicine/hygiene but it wasn't unheard of. Now it is. Now catching measles (one of, if not the, most contagious diseases) is newsworthy! Lower vaccine rates are creating a public health issue. THAT is why it's treated differently than drinking too much pop or eating too much fried food. Yes those are also serious health issues that cost millions if not billions every year, but if vaccine rates drop much lower, the costs will quickly exceed those. That is why it's so important. Obesity isn't contagious like measles (although yes I'm aware an obese family member increases risk of other obese family members).
I am curious to see the film, I think it will probably be (for lack of a better word) "entertaining" in the same model as "Making a Murderer" and "Serial" have been for many people recently.
I am sure it will present a biased view for the purposes of entertainment, just as those other programs did, and were very successful at. I do worry that there are a lot of people out there that are heavily influenced by what becomes essentially a fictional story presented in a non-fictional appearing package.
Everyone keeps mentioning Wakefield, but I don't think that is what the documentary is about, as a previous poster joshm pointed out, one of the focuses is on CDC whistleblower Dr William Thompson and the manipulation of data that showed African American males who received MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk of autism. The CDC did remove this data, I don't have any conspiracy theories about it, but I am willing to watch the movie, it will give other peoples' perspective about the issue of increased incidence of autism and I think I can manage not to buy into the fear mongering.
That's not an entirely true statement of what happened with Thompson and Hooker. There was no manipulation of data in the original study, some of the data was left out of the study (for an arguably good reason). The "CDC" (read: researchers) removed some data because the study participants did not have birth certificates and their ages could not be verified.
Thompson and Hooker then went on to publish their own study which was subsequently redacted for data manipulation (improper design and statistical analysis which lead to questionable validity and conflict of interest).
I am curious to see the film, I think it will probably be (for lack of a better word) "entertaining" in the same model as "Making a Murderer" and "Serial" have been for many people recently.
I am sure it will present a biased view for the purposes of entertainment, just as those other programs did, and were very successful at. I do worry that there are a lot of people out there that are heavily influenced by what becomes essentially a fictional story presented in a non-fictional appearing package.
That's not an entirely true statement of what happened with Thompson and Hooker. There was no manipulation of data in the original study, some of the data was left out of the study (for an arguably good reason). The "CDC" (read: researchers) removed some data because the study participants did not have birth certificates and their ages could not be verified.
Thompson and Hooker then went on to publish their own study which was subsequently redacted for data manipulation (improper design and statistical analysis which lead to questionable validity and conflict of interest).
I'm also going to make sure I see it so I can shoot it down in rebuttal to my friends, some of whom have gone to the Jenny McCarthy School of Medicine.
After taking Microbiology, I really do not understand anti-vacc people. Wackos. Now the chicken pox parties I get.
Why? it's better to vaccinate against varicella than have your kid contract the disease. Your kid isn't risking death with the vaccination but is with the disease. those chicken pox parties are the same thing as sending your kid into an isolation room to see how fast he can become infected with whatever the guy in the room has. Pretty bad plan isn't it.
Why? it's better to vaccinate against varicella than have your kid contract the disease. Your kid isn't risking death with the vaccination but is with the disease. those chicken pox parties are the same thing as sending your kid into an isolation room to see how fast he can become infected with whatever the guy in the room has. Pretty bad plan isn't it.
I always wonder whether those kids will call their parents and say thanks in 50 years when they have shingles.
I'm also going to make sure I see it so I can shoot it down in rebuttal to my friends, some of whom have gone to the Jenny McCarthy School of Medicine.
Keep in mind that (as we've seen a kazillion times on this site) presenting facts and evidence to misinformed people that what they believe is factually wrong doesn't make them change their minds -- it is likely to induce them to dig their heels in and believe the wrong stuff they believe even more strongly.
Specializes in Pharmaceutical Research, Operating Room.
I am also extremely proud to work for the company I am a part of. Obviously I can't go into specifics, but we are part of a team developing revolutionary treatments for chronic, devastating diseases like cancer, Hep C and Sickle Cell (just to name a few). The work is absolutely amazing and I am proud to be a part of a team helping to bring these drugs to market. Are these drugs expensive? Depending on the drug, absolutely. Do these drugs help to make the quality of life better for millions of people around the world on a daily basis? Absolutely. While I understand that there are obvious issues concerning cost and availability of these medications, it is incredible to me that we have these drugs and are finding new ones every year. I'm happy to be doing my own small part in making them available to those that need them.
Specializes in Pharmaceutical Research, Operating Room.
Regarding the minority, I assume that you agree with me that thinking that the government or pharmaceutical companies or some other unnamed entity are deliberately adding harmful ingredients to childhood vaccines with the purpose of causing serious disease, doesn't belong in the realm of mentally healthy?
@flying_ace2
I knew it! Since vaccines really isn't much of a cash cow, it had to be world dominion that you guys are after.
Thank you for your first point. I completely agree and think that anyone who doesn't think vaccines are necessary or a good idea for society and the human race in general are probably delusional enough to believe in something like Big Foot.
Regarding your second point - CRAP!!!!! You figured us out, I must now report back to my Evil Corporate Overlords to see how we deal with this slight inconvenience in our plans for WORLD DOMINATION.
(Yeah, heavy sarcasm, but seriously? I can't believe this topic is still even debatable at this point......)
The whole "Big Pharma makes billions on vaccines so they want everyone to have one" argument is so lacking in logic. Big Pharma would make TONS MORE profits off letting us all get sick and selling us much needed and (therefore expensive) medications to deal with the fallout. Critical thinking, anyone?!
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
Dreamed
11 Posts
Because vaccines don't have 100% efficacy. They may be close but not 100% means there is risk of catching it. It's also possible that the exposed child ends up bringing it home to his too-young-to-vac siblings or to their too-sick-to-vac family members. Vaccination is a community effort.