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?
For me, the movie is a symptom of the expanding culture of pseudoscience. It is very difficult to combat in the medical field.
Pseudoscience is a process where supporting evidence is generated from the initial acceptance of a belief. Science is fundamentally different in that a belief is generated from the supporting evidence. You can not effectively argue pseudoscience because no matter what supporting evidence is discussed it will not change the initial belief: as scientists this is foreign to us because out beliefs change with the supporting evidence.
It doesn't matter to a pseudocientist that the Thompson and Hooker paper was retracted for data manipulation because it supports their preconceived belief. Same thing with Wakefield's paper and ultimate criminal charges.
The real irony is that there is this notion in psuedoscience that the rest of the people are sheep when, for the majority, none have actually done any real thinking for themselves other than googling the choice they already made and parroting back everything they read.
Before my mother landscaped her backyard (she bought her house brand new in 1993), she had weeds in the backyard. She got lazy, let them grow, and the fire marshal came, and wrote her a ticket for the fire hazard. What was the big deal? It's her property, she can do what she wants! WRONG. The weeds were a fire hazard, it proposed a PUBLIC SAFETY issue.
Pseudoscience is a process where supporting evidence is generated from the initial acceptance of a belief. Science is fundamentally different in that a belief is generated from the supporting evidence. You can not effectively argue pseudoscience because no matter what supporting evidence is discussed it will not change the initial belief: as scientists this is foreign to us because out beliefs change with the supporting evidence.
It doesn't matter to a pseudocientist that the Thompson and Hooker paper was retracted for data manipulation because it supports their preconceived belief. Same thing with Wakefield's paper and ultimate criminal charges.
The real irony is that there is this notion in psuedoscience that the rest of the people are sheep when, for the majority, none have actually done any real thinking for themselves other than googling the choice they already made and parroting back everything they read.
Thank you for your excellent post!
I think that every word is spot on. The part I bolded is something that I find so very frustrating.
I guess how the human psyche works can be both fascinating and frustrating. It's hard for me to fathom how someone can feel like they alone are privy to "the inside scoop" and some higher level of understanding and at the same time seem completely oblivious to the fact that they really haven't looked at or understood the available scientific evidence at all.
I don't know if I'll be able to watch the entire film vaxxed, seeing that the trailer nearly brought me to tears from sheer frustration.
Some of the claims made in the trailer are outrageous.
We can predict that by 2032, 80% of the boys born will end up on the autism spectrum. Half the children, 80% of the boys.
First of all, I find no scientific basis for the numbers projected. In my opinion it's scare-mongering that completely lacks scientific support, designed to discourage parents from having their children vaccinated. As already discussed in this thread, the consequences of fewer children getting vaccinated, will be serious. The history of the diseases that today are vaccine-preventable tells us that it will cost human lives.
The second thing that struck me as off about this statement was the rather awkward wording "half the children, 80% of the boys". It quickly dawned on me that the reason for phrasing it that way is; psychological impact. It would have been more natural to say 80% of the boys and 20% of the girls instead of 80% of the boys and half the children. Because 80% and half sounds more than 80% and 20%. 20% isn't such a big number and it might not be frightening enough.
The women I quoted has previously had other theories about autism. It seems as if it isn't vaccines, it's GMOs.
If you read this link it will explain why it could also be organic foods that causes autism (or not )
@flying_ace2
No that I know that you know that I know, I'm starting to feel a bit worried..... Please tell your evil corporate overlords (I'm picturing James Bond type villains here) to go easy on me! I shall keep my knowledge of your nefarious maneuverings to myself. Promise.
(Just kidding. Vaccines are a good thing and there is no evil plot.)
Thanks again all, for all the interesting replies!
OK, so maybe I should ACTUALLY post something that adds to the discussion (stupid sleep deprivation). I actually have never understood why people have this fascination with conspiracies. Yes, there are side effects to vaccination. No, they are not common. What is common is the spread of the communicable disease and subsequent deaths that could be prevented.
On another note, I thought vaccinations were required for school aged children to attend school.
OK, so maybe I should ACTUALLY post something that adds to the discussion (stupid sleep deprivation). I actually have never understood why people have this fascination with conspiracies. Yes, there are side effects to vaccination. No, they are not common. What is common is the spread of the communicable disease and subsequent deaths that could be prevented.
On another note, I thought vaccinations were required for school aged children to attend school.
Some states are stricter than others with enforcing it.
NY does not really even do religious exemption without concise documentation.
I have 2 families in my school that opt out due to religion (really no medical exceptions) and the rest are on board.
Before my mother landscaped her backyard (she bought her house brand new in 1993), she had weeds in the backyard. She got lazy, let them grow, and the fire marshal came, and wrote her a ticket for the fire hazard. What was the big deal? It's her property, she can do what she wants! WRONG. The weeds were a fire hazard, it proposed a PUBLIC SAFETY issue.
Very interesting! I work in a newborn nursery and give initial hepatitis B shots to neonates. It is not often that someone declines the hepatitis B vaccine (twice in 1 shift was really jarring, but before that I hadn't had it occur in months). Recently a mother declared herself "a bit of an anti-vaxxer", showed me wikipedia and asked me if our vaccines contained mercury. I explained (after examining the hepatitis B vaccine insert and calling the pharmacy) that our vaccines do not contain mercury. Wikipedia told her that we were hiding mercury as thimerosal in our vaccines. Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001 (CDC, 2015). But your question rings true - what do we as healthcare professionals do? Do we use scare tactics - show videos of children dying from pertussis, show pictures of a child infected with measles? I don't think that's the solution. Do we provide yet more literature that goes unread? We're not going to change peoples minds, herd immunity to protect our children who cannot be vaccinated doesn't touch these folks. Sigh.
Some states are stricter than others with enforcing it.
NY does not really even do religious exemption without concise documentation.
I have 2 families in my school that opt out due to religion (really no medical exceptions) and the rest are on board.
Wow. I must be getting old. I seem to remember if a child was not current on their vaccinations, they were suspended. If they were out for 4 days, the truency officer was on the doorstep, wanting to know why they weren't at school. At least with my kids.
Now WAY on back when I was in grade school, I remember going into the cafeteria, and being given my vaccinations by the school nurse assembly line style.
Specializes in Pharmaceutical Research, Operating Room.
@flying_ace2
No that I know that you know that I know, I'm starting to feel a bit worried..... Please tell your evil corporate overlords (I'm picturing James Bond type villains here) to go easy on me! I shall keep my knowledge of your nefarious maneuverings to myself. Promise.
(Just kidding. Vaccines are a good thing and there is no evil plot.)
Of COURSE there's an evil plot!!!! I simply cannot divulge our plans for WORLD DOMINATION here, but you should know that it involves sharks with LASERS on their heads!!!!! Unless you give us.......
)
to cover this up. This vaccine tampering seems to be a part of some nefarious population control plot.
(or not 
No that I know that you know that I know, I'm starting to feel a bit worried..... Please tell your evil corporate overlords (I'm picturing James Bond type villains here) to go easy on me! I shall keep my knowledge of your nefarious maneuverings to myself. Promise.
BostonFNP, APRN
2 Articles; 5,584 Posts
For me, the movie is a symptom of the expanding culture of pseudoscience. It is very difficult to combat in the medical field.
Pseudoscience is a process where supporting evidence is generated from the initial acceptance of a belief. Science is fundamentally different in that a belief is generated from the supporting evidence. You can not effectively argue pseudoscience because no matter what supporting evidence is discussed it will not change the initial belief: as scientists this is foreign to us because out beliefs change with the supporting evidence.
It doesn't matter to a pseudocientist that the Thompson and Hooker paper was retracted for data manipulation because it supports their preconceived belief. Same thing with Wakefield's paper and ultimate criminal charges.
The real irony is that there is this notion in psuedoscience that the rest of the people are sheep when, for the majority, none have actually done any real thinking for themselves other than googling the choice they already made and parroting back everything they read.