The film: Vaxxed.

Published

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).

Vaxxed: Tribeca festival withdraws MMR film - BBC News

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?

Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER - YouTube

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 :lol2:)

Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Found Murdered. - YouTube

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 :eek: 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?

Specializes in MICU, ED, Med/Surg, SNF, LTC, DNS.
Can I join if I bring some Irish cream?

Sigh. Make mine a double. Wait, Irish creme?? I thought you said Irish coffee. Bah, I will just bring my own bottle.

Oh, by the way, couldn't stand it anymore. And, I am back to my normal mood. I guess withdrawal will do that to a guy. And such a waste of a finishing thread.

Specializes in Critical Care.
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.

Exactly, it's all about trust which brings us back to the topic of the thread; should we blindly trust what Wakefield is promoting, a man who performed and promoted widespread use of invasive procedures and tests on autistic children he knew were not necessary for his own personal gain, and who made up data to feed a baseless paranoia about something that keeps kids from dying unnecessarily. Personally that represents something even worse than Tuskegee, his actions are a clear example of why we should be careful about who and what information we trust.

Specializes in MICU, ED, Med/Surg, SNF, LTC, DNS.
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...

OK,

I have a question Pythinia, are you a nurse?

If one really believes that the film is wrong (I am NOT making any comments if the film is right or wrong), then why would you not want people to see it?

Honestly Banterings, you've written approximately 80 posts in a thread about the film "Vaxxed". That suggests to me that this is a topic that you have strong feelings about or are highly motivated to discuss for some reason. Yet you will not disclose your standpoint on the the film's main message; namely that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. This is difficult for me to understand. I'm not sure which message you intend to convey, but how we're perceiving you is quite clear. Look at the "likes" your posts are getting. The vast majority of them come from posters who seem to think that Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research actually has scientific credibility. I really would want to know, do you think that the film "Vaxxed" has some merit or do you think that it's a load of ****? You know what I think it is ;)

I am quite clear on why I started this thread.

*I'm a nurse.

*I believe that vaccines saves lives.

*I've personally experienced (seen, heard and smelled) people who have died from vaccine-preventable diseases. The thought of even one more child or adult dying needlessly causes me frustration and great sadness.

*I believe that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Scientific evidence supports that belief.

I know why I'm here. Why are you here? What motivates you?

In a court proceeding the best thing that you can get someone to do is make a false statement openly. When someone asserts their 5th Amendment rights, the assumption is that they are guilty.

Society and people don't function like a court of law.

The other issue that I see is either thinking that people are either so weak minded, unintelligent, or ??? that they make life and death decisions based on a movie. That is insulting to people who may have chosen not to vax for other reasons.

As we all now, half the population have lower than average intelligence. But what matters here isn't intelligence. The problem is ignorance; ie the lack of accurate information and understanding. That's a knowledge deficit and the good thing is that there is a cure for that.

In the same way, a campaign by the provax community urging people to see the film and see the nonsense (as someone on this thread described it) would add more to the credibility of the provax argument than suppressing it.

I don't think that anyone is suppressing anything.

Finally, if a movie is so influential, why has healthcare not made a movie that refutes Vaxxed's assertions? If people do make life decisions based on movies, then is not a pro vaccination movie the solution to the problem?

I really wish it was that simple, but it isn't and I think that you know that. You can't pretend that confirmation bias isn't a real thing. You can't ignore the very powerful need of many individuals to be able to have something tangible to direct their anger, hurt and sadness at when something bad happens to them or even more so their child, like for example a disease. You can't overlook the impact watching highly emotional scenes has on people, like for example seeing a little baby cry in pain or hearing grief-stricken parents tell stories of pain and hardships. People are so often easier swayed by emotional arguments than rational ones.

It's clear in this thread. The resistance and distrust of science is quite clear in some cases. I sadly don't expect a campaign with just the scientific facts regarding vaccines presented, would make much of an impact on those who've already decided to trust individuals supporting the anti-vaccine movement.

I pressed my like button a few times and it still only gives you one, macawake.

(^ This is not be read with innuendo)

Thank you for your eloquent breakdown. As always.

As I said 'waaaaaaayyyy back on page 6 (and in many similar threads on this site over time), the literature suggests that providing the pseudoscience crowd with proof that their beliefs are incorrect is unlikely to change their minds, just drive them to dig their heels in deeper. "Debating" these folks is a waste of time.

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

I keep telling you to ignore them and they will go away! LOL!!

Specializes in Critical Care.
I just thought of another case of science that has changed. Look at CA screenings recommended for men and women and how they changed.

PEs and PAPs for women annually starting around the age of 15, DREs for men starting at 40...

That was all science and not that long ago that we can all remember. How the guidelines have changed...

Exactly, more robust evidence makes for better treatment, less reliable evidence (non-existent, made up, etc) makes for worse treatment, I'm still not sure which one of those you're arguing for.

Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Can I join if I bring some Irish cream?

No need, I have some in stock! :)

Specializes in Family Practice, Mental Health.

Confession: Sometimes I put ice in my wine.

Will I still be allowed over for a drink too?

Nurse;8995681]Confession: Sometimes I put ice in my wine.

Will I still be allowed over for a drink too?

Where the hell have you been? :inlove:

Exactly, it's all about trust which brings us back to the topic of the thread; should we blindly trust what Wakefield is promoting, a man who performed and promoted widespread use of invasive procedures and tests on autistic children he knew were not necessary for his own personal gain, and who made up data to feed a baseless paranoia about something that keeps kids from dying unnecessarily. Personally that represents something even worse than Tuskegee, his actions are a clear example of why we should be careful about who and what information we trust.

First off, I have never defended Wakefield or his study if that is what you are implying. So why bring him up at all? It seems that you equate anything that is not your view to Wakefield, so it must be wrong. I (like most here) have not seen the film, so I am not sure if it is a Wakefield campaign or what.

Second, there has been research as to the effects of Tuskegee, which was done with the complicity of the Federal Government. Wakefield was a rogue researcher. So no, Wakefield is NOT worst than Tuskegee.

Honestly Banterings, you've written approximately 80 posts in a thread about the film "Vaxxed". That suggests to me that this is a topic that you have strong feelings about or are highly motivated to discuss for some reason. Yet you will not disclose your standpoint on the the film's main message; namely that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism. This is difficult for me to understand. I'm not sure which message you intend to convey, but how we're perceiving you is quite clear. Look at the "likes" your posts are getting. The vast majority of them come from posters who seem to think that Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent research actually has scientific credibility. I really would want to know, do you think that the film "Vaxxed" has some merit or do you think that it's a load of ****?

How you are perceiving me is not my problem, it is yours. That is deficit thinking.

There is a difference to MMR being linked to autism, MMR causing autism, and a statistical relationship between MMR and autism. MMR is linked (in one of many ways) to autism just through this post. The link has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not MMR causes autism. That is quite different from causing and a statistical relationship, the latter being scientific.

I have not seen the film vaxxed, so I am not going to comment on it. It must be your day off if you have the time to count my posts. I personally prefer something more thrilling...

Exactly, more robust evidence makes for better treatment, less reliable evidence (non-existent, made up, etc) makes for worse treatment, I'm still not sure which one of those you're arguing for.

What I am saying, what was preached as science; annual screenings were found to cause more harm than good. The screenings were changed to start later in life, skip more years, and end earlier in life. Furthermore, more options have been offered (virtual CT).

It all goes back to what we think we know.”

I have seen stated here we need not study the issue any more, because exhaustive studies have been done, this is what we know." People seem to take it as the word of God, just like the world being flat.

I have never said that vaccines cause autism, but I have a healthy skepticism on what we "think we know.” That seems to be missing.

Oh stop, banterings.

We have all been honest where we as individuals stand. Where do YOU stand on this?

+ Join the Discussion