To Vaccinate Or Not To Vaccinate, That Is The Question

Wuzzie · Oct 31, 2019

57 minutes ago, seraphimid said:
I wonder how many of your patients are “average morons off the street” and how exactly you treat them.

This is a hot topic for sure but this was uncalled for.

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

59 minutes ago, Wuzzie said:
This is a hot topic for sure but this was uncalled for.

If anyone should be referring to the general public as average morons it is definitely NOT nurses.

Katie82, RN · Oct 31, 2019

1 hour ago, seraphimid said:
I wonder how many of your patients are “average morons off the street” and how exactly you treat them.

Wow, that was uncalled for. Why don't you post your credentials in the post heading so we can see where that came from...….

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

2 minutes ago, Katie82 said:
Wow, that was uncalled for. Why don't you post your credentials in the post heading so we can see where that came from...….

A major mask slip and hidden hate for the average human was also uncalled for. I don’t need an acronym after my name to advocate for humility.

**LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM** · Oct 31, 2019

1 hour ago, seraphimid said:
I wonder how many of your patients are “average morons off the street” and how exactly you treat them.

Oh good grief. I'm being hyperbolic. My average patient does not work at the CDC, that's for sure, just like the average *person* does not. That's all I'm saying.

Just now, seraphimid said:
A major mask slip and hidden hate for the average human was also uncalled for. I don’t need an acronym after my name to advocate for humanity.

I do not have hate for any human. That does not mean that I think every single human is equally qualified to study the science behind vaccines.

Wuzzie · Oct 31, 2019

24 minutes ago, seraphimid said:
If anyone should be referring to the general public as average morons it is definitely NOT nurses.

Still doesn't make what you said right. Be better than that. Ad hominem attacks reduce your credibility.

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

21 minutes ago, Wuzzie said:
Still doesn't make what you said right. Be better than that.

Ok you’re right. I don’t question her patient care because that’s not up for discussion. But I still stand by the belief that the average citizen is intelligent enough to discern and make sound decisions. And if I thought they weren’t, it would reflect the society and culture rather than the individual as a moron. This is actually at the heart of the vaccine debate, experts deciding people are too stupid to make decisions regarding their health based on recommended guidelines.

Cowboyardee · Oct 31, 2019

On 10/29/2019 at 10:22 PM, seraphimid said:
The biggest risk is the explicit and scientifically studied and proven FACT that autoimmune diseases and vaccines have a causal relationship. The second biggest risk is that infants have immature immune systems. To repeat for the third or fourth time: fewer memory T cells in a baby = less antigen specifity in the immune system processes = more epitope cross reactivity = the T cells and macrophages attacking neuron epitopes = autoimmune disaster in an infant.

What specific studies would you consider to be the strongest and least disputible evidence of the 'fact' of this causal relationship?

That's not a rhetorical question - I'd like to know. Apologies if you've already cited some, but please humor me.

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

18 minutes ago, Cowboyardee said:
What specific studies would you consider to be the strongest and least disputible evidence of the 'fact' of this causal relationship?
That's not a rhetorical question - I'd like to know. Apologies if you've already cited some, but please humor me.

If you want to be humored, go to a comedy show. But to make a joke of the concerns of actual people, parents, and families is more of a tragedy if you ask me.

ITP, GBS, and transverse myelitis are just three confirmed autoimmune conditions with vaccination as a known etiology. I’ve shared several studies of autoimmune like syndromes after other vaccinations. Many autoimmune conditions are only just developing as a specific syndrome or condition and have remained undiagnosed and unrecognized for decades.

The increasing knowledge on the potential involvement of inflammatory processes in mental disorders and the associations found between autoimmunity and psychotic disorders can help the expanding field of immuno-psychiatry and have impact on the outcome of patients. In the last couple of years, researchers have focused on the role of infections, autoantibodies and other immune components that plays a major role in autoimmune diseases. Potentially this might also be the case for mental disorders. Risk factors for both autoimmune diseases and schizophrenia includes an interaction between environmental factors, such as infections and stress, with genetic factors involving the HLA region. Autoimmune reactions with activation of immune components and the production of NSAbs can induce a broad spectrum of psychiatric symptoms, hereunder psychosis. The potential autoimmune-mediated psychosis group might only be a small part of a broader immune-related psychosis group, and an even smaller fraction of the overall psychosis group. However, identification of this subgroup might allow for precision medicine strategies where immune-based treatment could possibly improve the psychotic symptoms. A quick discovery and treatment of autoimmune encephalitis markedly reduces the neuropsychiatric sequelae, and intensive immunotherapy in lupus patients with psychosis massively benefits psychiatric symptoms (42, 121).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6435494/

as the above study illustrates, there is an overlap between some psychotic symptoms and biological autoimmune events. The cross sections of neurology, immunology, and psychiatry are quite new and there is lots of research to be done.

what specific studies would you consider to be the strongest case for infant immunity and T-cell production being adequate to deal with epitope crossreactivity and antiDNA antigens?

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

1 hour ago, LibraSunCNM said:
Oh good grief. I'm being hyperbolic. My average patient does not work at the CDC, that's for sure, just like the average *person* does not. That's all I'm saying.
I do not have hate for any human. That does not mean that I think every single human is equally qualified to study the science behind vaccines.

Science is a priori open to question and study by anyone. That's why it is science. Einstein worked out relativity and fundamental quantum physics on his clerk job lunch breaks.

Can you show me a nursing or medical program where classes exclusively covering cell immunology and autoimmunity are part of the curriculum? Who are these experts and what qualifies one as such? Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class learns about confidence intervals and how to read a study. Statistics is a requirement for many undergraduate degrees that have a core curriculum.

To consider a matter settled is the most anti scientific stance one can take. Our very understanding of reality is theoretical. All we have is data, method, statistical confidence, theory and speculation, until we learn the next thing. When citizens have legitimate concerns about risk involved, they have every right to informed consent or refusal of a vaccination.

seraphimid · Oct 31, 2019

Biologists have occasionally noticed that something they do to an individual organism, that doesn’t immediately cause major changes in its development and functions, will produce serious effects in its offspring, and then in the next genera- tion, lethal effects. A group in Russia fed Monsanto- tainted foods to hamsters, and found that the effects appearing in the first generation were more extreme in the second generation, including infertility, and that only a few survived in the third generation (Baranov, et al., 2010; Surov, et al., 2010; Maligin & Ermakova, 2009; Ermakova, 2008). The doctrine that cells are controlled by genes, that acquired changes aren’t inherited, has made many people think that it would be unreasonable to continue toxicity studies beyond the life span of an individual animal. The fact that epigenetic changes and transgenerational effects are now well documented, requires that environmental pollu- tion be interpreted in new ways.
Many things that are now considered nontoxic and noncarcinogenic are likely to be harmful when exposure is extended transgenerationally. Impaired infant brain development, allergy, and autoimmune diseases are known to result from a great variety of causes, ranging from radiation to mild chronic stress.
The dogma that our being is determined by our “genetic blue print” has guided social policy very broadly. Doctors and public health officials, not long ago, were saying that a pregnant woman’s malnutrition had no effect on her baby, if it managed to be born alive. If a substance didn’t produce genetic mutations when cells were briefly exposed to it, it couldn’t be carcinogenic. If a certain dose of radiation didn’t produce mutations, it was said to be harmless. The genetic dogma was highly political; people who challenged it were excluded from the discussion. Despite the institu- tional power behind the dogma, the implications of epigenesis are now coming to be recognized.

**LibraSunCNM, BSN, MSN, CNM** · Oct 31, 2019

1 hour ago, seraphimid said:
Science is a priori open to question and study by anyone. That's why it is science. Einstein worked out relativity and fundamental quantum physics on his clerk job lunch breaks.
Can you show me a nursing or medical program where classes exclusively covering cell immunology and autoimmunity are part of the curriculum? Who are these experts and what qualifies one as such? Anyone who has taken a basic statistics class learns about confidence intervals and how to read a study. Statistics is a requirement for many undergraduate degrees that have a core curriculum.
To consider a matter settled is the most anti scientific stance one can take. Our very understanding of reality is theoretical. All we have is data, method, statistical confidence, theory and speculation, until we learn the next thing. When citizens have legitimate concerns about risk involved, they have every right to informed consent or refusal of a vaccination.

You seem to be conflating a few things I've said and putting words in my mouth.

1.) at no time have I stated that science cannot be studied by anyone. What I've stated is that I trust the CDC, despite your and other posters' assertions that they cannot be trusted, because they are trained scientists and publish peer reviewed, reliable research.

2.) at no time have I stated that to be able to disseminate research, do you need a particular degree. You're right---most nursing programs involve a course in both research and statistics, which is why I personally feel comfortable reading articles with a critical eye. However, unlike me, a trained healthcare professional, the average layperson does not have this background, nor do they have the scientific background to actually perform the research, like the scientists at the CDC.

3.) at no time have I stated that the matter is "settled." You're right, science is ever-evolving, which is what makes it so awesome. What I've stated is that currently, based on the research we have right at this moment, I personally am convinced that the benefits to vaccines far outweigh the risks, and are the most important contributor to the good of public health in the last century. Maybe someday my opinion will change based on new research, but right now I'm confident in my beliefs. When others disagree, I find it interesting to discuss where they're coming from to try to understand their point of view.

4.) at no time have I stated that I think people do *not* have the right to question vaccines or review the literature and make decisions for themselves. I completely agree with the concept of informed consent and the right to refusal. That doesn't mean that I won't continue to try to speak out in support of vaccines.