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?
Our society (as well as many other western societies) have set the court of law as the ultimate decider†in matters of conflict brought before it. Evidence is brought before the court, the court weighs the evidence and renders a decision.
Courts are not the ones responsible for creating the research. The attorneys represent the parties and their interests in the proceedings.
Nurses, physicians, scientists, etc. do NOT have the authority and (in most cases) the knowledge of law to render a judgement.
These issues are brought up and acted upon by government with the authority of the people. In the matter of disputes, the judicial branch of government with the authority of the people, render final decision (until new evidence is discovered).
The dispensation of judgement and justice, as well as the legislation of law, are guided by the framework of government (the Constitution here in the US), which also acts as the base for our society.
The pseudoscience of the law†equally adds nothing to the conversation.
And we all know how attorneys can twist words and language to make their client's point. They have no real qualifications to interpret medical research. Just because the court decided in a certain manner doesn't mean they made the correct decision. Many a guilty person has gone free, and many an innocent has been convicted. The court may have the POWER to make these medical decisions, but they do not have the KNOWLEDGE to do so.
And we all know how attorneys can twist words and language to make their client's point. They have no real qualifications to interpret medical research. Just because the court decided in a certain manner doesn't mean they made the correct decision. Many a guilty person has gone free, and many an innocent has been convicted. The court may have the POWER to make these medical decisions, but they do not have the KNOWLEDGE to do so.
Attorneys do NOT interpret medical research. They are the legal representative to a party of the proceeding and may act as inquisitor†in the presentation of evidence.
As I said, they weigh the evidence presented to them. That includes the credibility of the witnesses. Their expertise is in the interpretation of the law.
That is why lady justice is often depicted blind folded, it is the weight of the evidence (and not the prejudices of the people, the court, or the judge) that decides.
The rationals of science (which hold true today) lead to the eugenics movement and the (beginnings) of the Holocaust (that some individuals, especially the sick and disabled, will consume many times more resources than the average member of society and contribute many times less to society than the average individual).
That is what pure science leads too and that is why healthcare professionals act as (only) advisors to those who set policy. It is true that some who set policy and are elected or appointed to government are healthcare professionals, but that is (mostly) not a requirement.
Where it is a requirement (such as surgeon general), the legislature can override what the healthcare provider thinks is the correct course. Look at cigarettes; would anyone here say that smoking is not bad for your health? Every pack has the surgeon general's warning on it… Yet, why are they not outright banned? Because society has deemed the human right of autonomy; the freedom of people to choose how they live their lives is more important than imposing a draconian health standard that has been scientifically proven.
The risk to our mental well being and to our dignity (by nature of our human rights), far out weigh the risk of smoking. Yes, government makes mistakes.
Self regulation in healthcare is an example of why we need people like judges and legislators to make these decisions. A 2008 LA Times investigation found that dozens of nurses convicted of crimes, including sex offenses and attempted murder, have remained fully licensed to practice in California for years before the state nursing board acted against them.
The court do not need to have medical knowledge to render a decision. In fact, medical knowledge may be a hinderance.
Oh that's right . . . the time difference. Ok, let's head over to Farawyn's house. I'm not on call and we can start drinking beer! Or wine if she has any. Or maybe I'll bring some.
And would you please quit being so censorious, patients don't always adhere to your impatience with them like your quote 'well I heard'.... if so busy delegate their 'concerns' to a higher authority i.e a Doctor.
And would you please quit being so censorious, patients don't always adhere to your impatience with them like your quote 'well I heard'.... if so busy delegate their 'concerns' to a higher authority i.e a Doctor.
this post is to shaneteam...
Can you please use the quote button? I have no idea what you're referring to and I don't want to go hunting through all the posts to figure it out.
I'm having trouble finding the smoking mention and I'm a newb who doesn't know how to multiquote, so I'll preface that I am replying to the idea that there is an epidemic of vaccine reactions as evidenced by the VAERS, plus the smoking-vaccines parallel as an example of government-protected freedom of choice.
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
If my left eye turned purple the day after my third Hep B vaccine, I could have reported it on the VAERS. That does not mean there is a valid correlation, much less a proven causation.
Smoking is an interesting parallel for many reasons. First, the government is not a disinterested party because the state and federal governments rake in dollars of taxes on every pack sold. Second, smoking is regulated. Only adults are allowed to make the decision of whether to smoke. Third, you are only allowed to make the decision of whether you smoke; you are not allowed to force other people into it. In 36 states, it is illegal to smoke in restaurants. There are also many regulations on how close to a building's entrance you can smoke, and smaller entities - e.g. hospitals - can create entire no-smoking campuses. You are not allowed to smoke on a hospital campus because you are often around people who are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of smoking. In other words, you can make the choice, but there are restrictions on that choice, and it has consequences. Perhaps it's a pretty good parallel, after all.
When EBP is based on corrupt practices, it is a blow to EBP because they can be refuted by experts.
Furthermore in court proceedings the Standard of Care†is the criteria to be met in determination of such things as malpractice. EBP is only one component of the SOC.
When something promoted as evidence based practice turns out to not actually be supported by the evidence then it's no longer "evidence based". If the evidence says povidine-iodine is actually better in terms of safety and efficacy then it doesn't mean EBP isn't to be trusted, that's an example of the importance of evidence based practice and how evidence can expose bad practices and recommendations.
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
BCgradnurse, MSN, RN, NP
1,678 Posts
And we all know how attorneys can twist words and language to make their client's point. They have no real qualifications to interpret medical research. Just because the court decided in a certain manner doesn't mean they made the correct decision. Many a guilty person has gone free, and many an innocent has been convicted. The court may have the POWER to make these medical decisions, but they do not have the KNOWLEDGE to do so.