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?
Penalty box for poor health care reportingIn the Q&A that followed the talk, managing editor of The Daily Briefingand Forbes contributor, Dan Diamond, asked Offit if journalists write stories about debate†on vaccines– and people die from not getting vaccinated–are they party to murder.
Offit responded with the idea that we should have journalism jail†for such individuals.
Although that kicker brought some laughter among the audience, Offit later added more solemnly, You work in a hospital and you watch children die from preventable disease–it makes you passionate.â€
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Oh stop, banterings.
We have all been honest where we as individuals stand. Where do YOU stand on this?
I believe we've seen the second coming of Fred Astaire, what with all his/her tap dancing around what his/her background is and where s/he comes down on the issue.
I believe we've seen the second coming of Fred Astaire, what with all his/her tap dancing around what his/her background is and where s/he comes down on the issue.
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.
.
Because this entire thread was supposed to be a discussion (if you will) about the movie Wakefield put out. You know, "Vaxxed". Just sayin'. Or rather - "whatchu talkin' 'bout, willis?"
Because this entire thread was supposed to be a discussion (if you will) about the movie Wakefield put out. You know, "Vaxxed". Just sayin'. Or rather - "whatchu talkin' 'bout, willis?"
Ah, you beat me to it. This thread IS about Wakefield.
Why are the moderators putting up with this trivia?
It's been a good thread. I hadn't, and probably should have, thought about the wider implications of individuals making the decision NOT to receive vaccination for themselves or their children. It's been very interesting. I've yet to hear a good evidence (rather than emotion) based anti-vaxx argument but it's been very informative overall.
)
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
Yes, and what was your motivation to come to a nursing website to argue your point, whatever that point may be?