It's not nice to falsify research

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

It's not nice to falsify research

Post by Bill Glasheen »

This jackass lost his medical license for the harm he caused both to public health and to research on the causes of and cure for autism. Sorry, but it's not enough. This guy should be in jail for what he did.

Then maybe we won't all have to suffer from the aftermath of junk science. This cancer in academia (and in the courts) has led to spending money unecessarily (climate change anyone??), litigating our hard working medical professionals (CP and obstetricians), and avoiding important medical therapies (the MMR vaccine).

- Bill
U.K. Bans Doctor Who Linked Autism to Vaccine

By JEANNE WHALEN
A U.K. medical regulator revoked the license of the doctor who first suggested a link between vaccines and autism and spurred a long-running, heated debate over the safety of vaccines.

Ending a nearly three-year hearing, Britain's General Medical Council found Andrew Wakefield guilty of "serious professional misconduct" in the way he carried out his research in the late 1990s. The council struck his name from the U.K.'s medical register.

The same body in January concluded that Dr. Wakefield's research was flawed, saying that he had presented his work in an "irresponsible and dishonest" way and shown "callous disregard" for the children in his study.

Shortly after that January ruling, the British medical journal that first published Dr. Wakefield's study, the Lancet, retracted it. His central claim—that there could be a link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine—has largely been discredited.

Dr. Wakefield couldn't immediately be reached to comment Monday. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. on Monday, he said he would appeal the GMC's decision. "Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal," Dr. Wakefield said, according to the BBC.

Dr. Wakefield's 1998 study of 12 children triggered worry among parents world-wide that the MMR vaccine caused autism. Many decided not to immunize their children, leading to outbreaks of measles in some Western countries. As many as 2.1% of children in the U.S. weren't immunized with the MMR vaccine in 2000, up from 0.77% in 1995, according to a 2008 study published in Pediatrics.

A 2004 statistical review of existing epidemiological studies by the Institute of Medicine, a respected nonprofit organization in the U.S., concluded that there was no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Some autism activist groups, however, continue to advocate against vaccinations for children, despite the lack of scientific evidence for such a link.

In an eight-page decision released Monday, the GMC found Dr. Wakefield guilty of numerous cases of misconduct in his research, including: taking blood samples from children during a birthday party without approval from the necessary ethics committee and paying them £5 ($7.24) as a reward; improperly managing and accounting for funds he received to carry out his research; treating the children in his research unethically by causing them to undergo procedures such as lumbar punctures that weren't clinically necessary; and failing to disclose conflicts of interest to the Lancet, including that he received research funding from a lawyer representing parents who believed the MMR shot had harmed their children.

In the 1998 paper, Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues described 12 "previously normal" children who had developed gastrointestinal problems and developmental disorders including autism. The paper concluded that "in most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
- WSJ
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

http://www.slate.com/id/2255259/

More on this guy. He was patenting his own measles vaccine while writing since-refuted critiques of the MMR (which he previously tried to blame for other conditions as well) in journals, without telling them about the conflict of interest.

His unfortunately well selling new book Callous Disregard is making him lots of $, and the forward is by none other than PhD brainiac vaccine researcher extraordinaire, I mean Playboy Bunny, Jenny McCarthy :roll:

Chelation therapy, anyone?
--Ian
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

I agree that it is despicable to misreport the results for profit as Wakefield evidently did. Looking at the original data from Salk, it appears that he was also "selective" in his data to get the results that he desired for his on profit.

IANAMDNDIPOOTV, but I have plenty of questions and concerns, especially since it has been little reported, but fully acknowledged that there are current vaccines that have been found to have contamination from a whole host of things, the most disturbing of which is the various virus contaminants. The literature is saying that some (the ones they understand the best) of those viruses can and do cause major problems in humans.

Sooooo... I don't care about or listen to this Wakefield character, but I've seen and read plenty of things that cause concern in other areas.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Post by Dana Sheets »

There's a nice concept in marketing (courtesy of a WIRED writer) that I think is useful here. It is the long-tail.
Image

Think of the long tail as a variation of the two sides of the standard deviation:
Image

I think what we're talking about here are long-tail events. In the log tail of a curve you're going to have specific, adverse events because humans aren't carbon copies of one another. The question is whether those adverse events in the long tail outweight the vast majority of benefits received.

A good friend of mine's husband contracted Guillain-Barré.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm
They think he got it from this past fall's flu vaccine. There's something like 10-30 such events reported annually. Are 10-30 events enough of a down-side vis-a-vis the millions of people who experience protection from the vaccine?

That's the question at hand for each and every vaccine.

Is a one in a million chance enough to create a major public health crisis by stopping vaccinations or vaccine development?

My opinion is no; because, right now I can look at the numbers and do a rational cost-benefit analysis and say that, for the good of the USA, we need our vaccines.

I've spoken in the past with a number of folks who lived through the heyday of polio, small pox, measles, and mumps. They all love vaccines. They also come from an era that more clearly understood that a medical solution is a chance, not a guarantee.

Medicine has evolved to the point where it works so often that we want it to work all the time. Fortunately or not, that will never be the case.
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

That was a very thoughtful post, Dana. And you bring out some very important concepts.

I do however want to address your hypothesis.
Dana wrote:
I think what we're talking about here are long-tail events. In the log tail of a curve you're going to have specific, adverse events because humans aren't carbon copies of one another. The question is whether those adverse events in the long tail outweight the vast majority of benefits received.
Actually this turns out not to be the case, Dana.
  • It IS true that there's a slight chance of contracting Guillain-Barré from an influenza vaccine. It's my understanding that this is becoming more rare over time. But yes, this is a rare event that can happen.
  • It is true that you can die from an allergic reaction to penicillin.
  • It is also true that there are any number of allergy-related serious events (i.e. reaction to eggs) that can happen if you have a vaccine.
However there is no (zero, zilch, nada) proof that the MMR vaccine causes autism. As much as a trial attorney wouild love to dig into the deep pockets of Big Pharma so he can build his summer home on the river, the relationship just doesn't exist. Period. End of story.

The same is true for silicone breast implants and connective tissue disorders. Nevertheless, trial attorneys just about bankrupt Dow Chemical over it. And they didn't give a single penny back.

The same is true for what an OB does during delivery, and whether or not a baby develops CP. Nevertheless trial attorneys have caused many OBs to quit the profession, and have made it difficult for women to get OB services in some states and in rural areas where these show trials occur. And they didn't give a single penny back. (John Edwards anyone???)

THIS is the specific tragedy of this situation, Dana.

There are currently 68 (sixty-eight) REVIEW articles in the literature on the subject, and they all point to the same thing. No correlation, So what is it about? Sutton's Law. It WAS where the litigation money was (as Willie Sutton robbed banks because it's where the money was).

Here's the most recent review article I could find. And as you can see, the subject gets world-wide attention. (And note the incredulity displayed by the non-American author)
Rev Neurol. 2010 Mar 3;50 Suppl 3:S91-9.
[Autism and vaccinations: the end?]

[Article in Spanish]

Artigas-Pallarés J.

Hospital de Sabadell, Centre Mèdic Psyncron, Barcelona, España. 7280jap@comb.es
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Of the different theories explaining the aetiology of autism, one that has achieved widespread popularity among the general public is the involvement of the MMR vaccine as the causation of autism. The connection between vaccines and autism rests upon two theories. On the one hand, the anti-measles fraction of the vaccine is attributed with the development of an enteropathy due to malabsorption, which would facilitate the absorption of toxic neuropeptides and the effects of this process on the brain would favour the appearance of autism. The other theory involves thimerosal (a combination of ethylmercury and thiosalicylate), which is used as a preservative in some vaccines, including the MMR. The data in favour of these hypotheses have led to a great amount of social alarm, especially in certain areas that are more inclined to accept 'alternative' therapies and hypotheses. DEVELOPMENT AND CONCLUSIONS: This article analyses the data on which the involvement of the MMR vaccine in autism is based. It also underlines the weakness of the anti-vaccine arguments, as well as the forceful, convincing response, based on experimental and epidemiological work, that has been generated following the notable social unrest. Running parallel to the scientific debate, there has also been a legal discussion, which has arisen as a consequence of the more than 5,000 lawsuits filed in the United States, and in which the claims for financial compensation together amount to two thousand million dollars. On 12th February 2009, following a court hearing in which the specific case of a girl called Michelle Cedillo was taken as an example, the court ruled that the overall weight of the evidence was overwhelmingly opposed to the theories put forward by the plaintiffs.
Nevertheless... Thanks for your attitude about medicine, and your conceptual explanation about statistical distributions. I live in the world every day, and find it difficult to help ordinary people understand the most basic concepts.

- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dana Sheets
Posts: 2715
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am

Post by Dana Sheets »

Sorry if I gave anyone the impression that I thought there as a correlation between Autism and a vaccine. I don't, never have, and never will. I believe the person who just lost his license should lose his money and go to prison for life, for manslaughter.

He started an epidemic of vaccine aversion that had lead to the death of hundreds if not thousands of children that never should have died all so that he could try to make a buck off of his version of the vaccine.

What I was attempting to illustrate was my thinking behind continuing to support vaccine use for the vaccines we know have rare, adverse events.

(Of course there's some very interesting science floating around about gut permeability and environmental factors that predispose an developing human to gut/brain axis events, so-call auto-immune disorders and diseases--like celiac and type 1 diabetes, and other conditions. The short version - don't put cereal grains in the bottle.)
Did you show compassion today?
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Dana Sheets wrote:The question is whether those adverse events in the long tail outweight the vast majority of benefits received.
Yes it is.
A good friend of mine's husband contracted Guillain-Barré.
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/gbs/gbs.htm
They think he got it from this past fall's flu vaccine. There's something like 10-30 such events reported annually.
Sorry to hear that, especially given the fact that last years flu season was a bust (and not because of vaccines because vaccination last year was actually down).
Are 10-30 events enough of a down-side vis-a-vis the millions of people who experience protection from the vaccine?
It probably is if you or your loved ones are one of the 10-30.
That's the question at hand for each and every vaccine.

Is a one in a million chance enough to create a major public health crisis by stopping vaccinations or vaccine development?
I don't think it is a reason to stop R&D, but it definitely is an issue if you are the "1 in a million" and it appears that the percentages are much higher.
My opinion is no; because, right now I can look at the numbers and do a rational cost-benefit analysis and say that, for the good of the USA, we need our vaccines.

I've spoken in the past with a number of folks who lived through the heyday of polio, small pox, measles, and mumps. They all love vaccines. They also come from an era that more clearly understood that a medical solution is a chance, not a guarantee.
I completely agree that medicine is a chance, not a guarantee. Looking at the historical data suggests that debilitating polio wasn't as big an issue as it has been made out to be and that both polio and smallpox were in decline long before vaccines were introduced. I remember when measles & mumps were two normal childhood diseases and that parents would send their children for sleep-overs in order to get the mild case that would give lifetime immunity. Such lifetime immunity has been shown to not occur with modern MMR vaccines.
Bill Glasheen wrote: However there is no (zero, zilch, nada) proof that the MMR vaccine causes autism. As much as a trial attorney wouild love to dig into the deep pockets of Big Pharma so he can build his summer home on the river, the relationship just doesn't exist. Period. End of story.
First let me reiterate that John Edwards and his ilk are the scum of the earth. HOWEVER, you should know (if you don't already) that vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. can not be held liable. It's the law, so while there are plenty of "ambulance chaser" lawyers out there, they can't "build their summer home on the river" by suing vaccine manufacturers. Even the seasonal flu and variations such as H1N1 vaccine manufacturers can not be held liable for injuries caused by those vaccines. This legal protection has been extended in a large number of other countries.

Perhaps Dana could ask her friend if they have any capability of direct action against the manufacturer. Perhaps she could find out if they are limited to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program run by the Feds that limits what an individual can receive and only compensates when they or their "experts" (who have been shown now to have undisclosed financial ties with the vaccine makers they're "regulating"... just as bad as the John Edwards-type lawyers for disclosure IMNSHO) decide something is vaccine related.
The same is true for silicone breast implants and connective tissue disorders. Nevertheless, trial attorneys just about bankrupt Dow Chemical over it. And they didn't give a single penny back.

The same is true for what an OB does during delivery, and whether or not a baby develops CP. Nevertheless trial attorneys have caused many OBs to quit the profession, and have made it difficult for women to get OB services in some states and in rural areas where these show trials occur. And they didn't give a single penny back. (John Edwards anyone???)
In general I think we agree on these "attorney" scum, but I don't think limiting or removing the liability of companies is right either. Doing so for Big Pharma is the same as limiting or removing the liability of Big Tobacco... But Big Pharma is trying to make their products required and without any warnings at all, while Big Tobacco's products come with all manner of warnings and those who choose to use those products have been inundated with warnings. If someone chooses to ignore those warnings, their choice... Big Pharma is trying to take that choice away with their products and make no mistake about it, Big Pharma is all about the money too.
I live in the world every day, and find it difficult to help ordinary people understand the most basic concepts.
Here's one that is the conventional wisdom that I don't understand. This just doesn't make sense to me from any logical point.

"Un-vaccinated people cause vaccinated people to get the disease."

I call BS.

If someone is vaccinated and the vaccine really works, then they shouldn't get the disease if they are exposed to it. THAT's the whole purpose of getting vaccinated! So those who are UN-vaccinated are the ones who are at risk... If vaccines work. Every time I read something about vaccinated people catching something there is always a disclaimer that somehow they weren't vaccinated "enough" or it didn't "take" or some other excuse for it not working.

I'm not anti-vaccine, I just want all the info I can get... and I don't want vaccine manufacturers to be legally unaccountable as they currently are. AND after getting all the info I can get I want to keep the right to make medical decisions with me and my family... (just like abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor and should not be required or prevented by legislation!)
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Panther wrote:
Dana wrote:
Are 10-30 events enough of a down-side vis-a-vis the millions of people who experience protection from the vaccine?
It probably is if you or your loved ones are one of the 10-30.
Sheet happens, Panther.

There is a phenomenon that I'm sure has a name, but I don't have it at the tip of my research brain. But basically it's how people often respond to a risk situation that's totally out of proportion to the actual numerical risk that can be calculated with the right data.

For example...

My spouse has NEVER been on an airplane. Her father had a similar hysterical personality about transportation. And yet she'll think nothing of driving to and from work every day - in rush hour. And she'll drive to and from work every day with bald tires and bad brakes if you don't check up on her. She'll also exceed the speed limit, etc., etc.

The dose-response relationship (risk vs. aversion to travel) is not rational with her. It's purely an emotional thing. And yet she's got as good a chance as anyone of heading to an early grave from a simple car accident. Or worse yet, she could end up an invalid.

She also won't eat beef because of mad cow. And she won't get near anything that has touched beef. Do you know how many cases of human mad cow disease we've had in this country? But she'll eat all kinds of foods that put her at risk of salmonella poisoning. Can't happen:? BS. My son spent 5 days in the hospital from it.

Sheet happens. We're ALL going to die - some sooner than others. The rational goal is to minimize your risk of morbidity and mortality. But a lot of people don't respond rationally.

Oh well...
Panther wrote:
Looking at the historical data suggests that debilitating polio wasn't as big an issue as it has been made out to be and that both polio and smallpox were in decline long before vaccines were introduced.
Not true.

First... Polio has been around forever. We only started seeing it in the last century and a half because we've become a sanitary society. Now that's just wonderful. People don't die of all kinds of nasty things at early ages.

However...

Get exposed to polio naturally as an infant, and you'll never, ever have symptoms. Live where you have common sanitation, and the child gets exposed to it later. The later you get exposed to polio, the more likely you'll come down with horrible consequences.

As for it being not that big a deal... I'm old enough to have seen polio victims, Panther. Do you know what it's like to live the rest of your life with an arm or a leg that's pencil thin and breaks when you look at it the wrong way? It isn't the way a body wants to live. And those limbs will never, ever be the same. Not with all the physical therapy in the world.

This is a big deal.

Image

Image

Image

Here's a rare photo of the real Roosevelt.
Image

Oh and for the record... We (Europeans) killed more Native Americans with smallpox, measles, and influenza than we did with warfare and forced starvation. By the butal process of Darwin's laws, Europeans are the members of their tribes that were more likely to survive these scourges. The Native American DNA had never seen these population insults. The result was nothing short of unintentional ethnic cleansing. Very sad, but very true.
Panther wrote:
I remember when measles & mumps were two normal childhood diseases and that parents would send their children for sleep-overs in order to get the mild case that would give lifetime immunity. Such lifetime immunity has been shown to not occur with modern MMR vaccines.
I had mumps the old-fashioned way, Panther. Twice. So much for that theory...

It's because of having mumps that I know about the TW 17 kyusho point. The first time Jimmy Malone showed me this, I was sold on it. Yep... instant feeling of having the mumps. Annoy the schit out of that parotid gland. :twisted:
Panther wrote:
In general I think we agree on these "attorney" scum, but I don't think limiting or removing the liability of companies is right either. Doing so for Big Pharma is the same as limiting or removing the liability of Big Tobacco... But Big Pharma is trying to make their products required and without any warnings at all, while Big Tobacco's products come with all manner of warnings and those who choose to use those products have been inundated with warnings. If someone chooses to ignore those warnings, their choice... Big Pharma is trying to take that choice away with their products and make no mistake about it, Big Pharma is all about the money too.
Where do I start here?

First... Tobacco is a product that causes morbidity and possibly mortality - EVEN WHEN USED AS DIRECTED. There is no "good" on the health front. You get a nicotine buzz, and that's it. Meanwhile, nicotine is as addictive as heroine. And the warnings only came after years and years of litigation.

MEANWHILE.

Big Pharma makes drugs which are made available to treat - and sometimes cure - diseases. Unlike tobacco, there is a potential medical upside.

As for warnings, well... Panther, Panther, Panther.... Have you ever read the drug insert on ANY manufactured drug? Oh ... my ... God ... The exact OPPOSITE of what you say is true. They list each and every possible side effect to the point that no "normal" person can digest it.

To wit - see the insert on one of the most commonly-used Statins today. Zocor Insert

Therefore...

It's up to your goddamn doctor to help you on this. And if he isn't, then change doctors, Panther. You're getting ripped off.

Oh and if you haven't figured it out by now, my dad assigned me to help him address his health needs. ;)
Panther wrote:
Here's one that is the conventional wisdom that I don't understand. This just doesn't make sense to me from any logical point.

"Un-vaccinated people cause vaccinated people to get the disease."

I call BS.
Call it all you want, Panther, but it's true.

If you only read what you wrote above, you'd see how that is possible, Panther. You're actually contradicting yourself.

Very few therapies are 100 percent. Birth control pills have a quantifiable failure rate. Condoms have a quantifiable failure rate. And vaccines have a quantifiable failure rate.

Vaccines DECREASE your risk of contracting an illness. They don't ELIMINATE it. The degree to which the vaccine works depends upon how well your immune system responds to the injected antigen, and then how robust it is when you're subsequently exposed to the real thing.

Nevertheless... If you get a vaccine and you contract the illness, chances are that it won't be as severe or last as long. So it's still better to get it - even if it "fails."

As for your comment about the flu vaccines and this last season, well your statement can't be substantiated.

If a tree falls in the forest and you weren't there, did it make a sound?

If a vaccine campaign works, then FEWER people get the disease. Trust me on this one, Panther. Swine flu (H1N1) IS a big deal, and it DID get around. My older son got it before the vaccine was available. He was very, very sick for a week. A number of people in Virginia died from it.

The best way to know if a vaccine campaign worked is if the flu season "wasn't that big a deal." After a certain vaccination rate, you get what epidemiologists call "herd immunity." In other words enough people are vaccinated in a population that it doesn't spread very efficiently. So while HEDIS programs (from National Committee for Quality Assurance) are always trying to get vaccine rates near 100 percent, the truth is that we can almost destroy the ability to get a disease with something short of 100 percent vaccination rate.

This is how we killed small pox. Forever. Unless some asswipe gets a hold of the CDC supply of the virus and releases it long after we've stopped giving the vaccine. Like nuclear warfare and dirty bombs, it could happen. But we can do everything we can to see that it doesn't.

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"But Big Pharma is trying to make their products required and without any warnings at all."

There's some truth to this... Big Pharma would love it if Gardasil were required, for example. They got pushback to their campaign, mostly from irrational people who think that it'll make their daughters promiscuous or sanction free love when it won't, and when these same people have NO concerns about their kids getting HBV vaccination, also for an STD. But anyway.

Here are the serious promotion crimes I've witnessed:

1) Promotion of off-label use. 17 Drug companies have been penalized 10-1,400 MILLION for promotion in kids off label, in adults off label with an increased risk of death, hiding side effects, so on, and pricing schemes. See NEJM qui tam lawsuit article 5/13/10. This is what they did KNOWING they could lose billions getting caught.

2) Promotion of on label terrible medicine, too: in residency I was advised to use spectracef and zithromax for bronchitis and strep throat by different reps. Why is this bad? First, no antibiotic helps bronchitis (in people without emphysema), and they weren't licensed for the purpose. Second, strep throat responds to penicillin tablets for a nickle. If people are allergic, you should use keflex for a nickle, or erythromycin for a nickle (maaaaybe zithromax for $60 if they're highly allergic and emycin intolerant--if such people ever get strep throat). These people wanted me to waste lots of $ just so they could make a profit. It's like selling a diamond coated saw to get thru MDF at home depot. Third, both drugs are broad spectrum. They kill many more bacteria than needed and increase the risk of secondary infections, diarrhea, and drug resistance hurting the patient and community.

Another example would be the heavy promotion of SNRI instead of SSRI for depression and the use of augmenting anti-psychotics for depression. These products have more adverse drug events, cost more, and do little extra. The companies also downplay the adverse events. But once you meet someone who has new onset diabetes, high blood pressure, a new kind of tremor, high cholesterol and gained 50 pounds from an augmenting agent they didn't need and that cost them several thousand dollars.... well....

This is why I have a salaried position. I don't want to be pressured to admit a patient, discharge a patient, over bill a patient, or sell a test or therapy that I have a personal stake in.

Physicians should ban holding an interest in any product a doctor prescribes, whether a medication, or a radiology group, so on.

Payers should stop paying for ineffective, less effective, and unneeded care, also immediately.

Drug inserts should be written by the FDA and physicians and geared toward clinical utility, NOT by the drug companies and not packed with useless overcomplicated info.
--Ian
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Panther wrote:I call BS.

If someone is vaccinated and the vaccine really works
I don't know if this is what the original quote was refering to or not, but...

The part where not vaccinating hurts is something called herd immunity.
A vaccine *really* works if it works 80% of the time. No vaccine is 100%. So what you have is 20% of those vaccinated people are still succeptible. If everybody stops getting vaccinated, then the odds disease becomes more prevalent, and that 20% of people are more likely to be exposed to (and therefore contract) the disease.

There's a tipping point past which the disease can't really sustain itself. I don't know what the magic number is (and it surely depends on the pathogen in question) but it's something along the lines of: if 95% of the people are immune, the remaining 5% aren't enough for the pathogen to find suitable hosts, and so it goes away.

Now that doesn't mean you have a responsibility to get vaccinated to protect other people, but it does mean that one person's choice not to be vaccinated does affect other people.
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"Now that doesn't mean you have a responsibility to get vaccinated to protect other people..."

Why the heck not? Professionally, I MUST get vaccinated for flu to work at the hospital. I can't be a mosquito giving diseases to people who are already sick. The community is merely an extension of this... I wouldn't legally require seasonal flu vaccine, but wow, is it annoying when I suffer a week long illness from a cold or something someone else left on a shopping cart handle. Golden Rule that stuff.

I personally have been immunized against pertussis, long time ago. Then, probably at work, I got it. I diagnosed myself and got treated (treatment prevents spread but doesn't reduce duration or symptoms in infected people). Immunity wanes after a pertussis vaccine. But IF everyone were reliably immunized, the people whose immunity waned would not get sick, as per Justin's comment.
--Ian
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

IJ wrote: There's some truth to this... Big Pharma would love it if Gardasil were required, for example. They got pushback to their campaign, mostly from irrational people who think that it'll make their daughters promiscuous or sanction free love when it won't, and when these same people have NO concerns about their kids getting HBV vaccination, also for an STD. But anyway.
Gardasil has been mandated in a number of Countries and States. (such as Australia, New Zealand, New York & Texas). There are serious illnesses, side effects and death directly linked to Gardasil. Even one of the main MDs who helped design and carry out safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, authored many of the published scholarly papers about it, has been a paid speaker and a paid consultant with Merck has now spoken out to publicly criticize that vaccine and questions the risk-vs-benefit profile of that vaccine.
The companies also downplay the adverse events. But once you meet someone who has new onset diabetes, high blood pressure, a new kind of tremor, high cholesterol and gained 50 pounds from an augmenting agent they didn't need and that cost them several thousand dollars.... well....
Without getting into it, I am fully aware and very thankful of the wonderful MDs who are out there and truly help people. I've been on the receiving end of that help. I'm also a huge believer in learning as much as I can and finding out what I need to know to make the best informed decision for ME. Part of the issue is when I found out (after the fact) that a Doctor (who is no longer my Doctor) gave me a medicine which had a laundry list of side effects (as you listed) and has caused me many, many years of problems. I have since found out that after getting a viral infection during my ordeal, I also became deficient in a number of vitamins & minerals. Simply taking some supplements has replaced the drug. That MD never told me about being financially connected with the drug manufacturer and now I'm fighting a whole different set of problems that I shouldn't have to be. (That MD also told me that I'd never walk without a walker again either... HA!) Anyway, I lost a LOT of trust in MDs then, but having also been saved by modern medicine, I still know there are good ones out there. (I have one now that is very patient - no pun intended - with my questions and attitude). I'm STILL dealing with problems caused by drug side effects which I didn't need or didn't need to take but a very small time instead of years.
This is why I have a salaried position. I don't want to be pressured to admit a patient, discharge a patient, over bill a patient, or sell a test or therapy that I have a personal stake in.

Physicians should ban holding an interest in any product a doctor prescribes, whether a medication, or a radiology group, so on.
As I've said before, you and Bill both fall into my "good doc" category! :wink:
Payers should stop paying for ineffective, less effective, and unneeded care, also immediately.
IMNSHO, even tho it is very hard to have happen, I think this also falls on the Patient. Patients should do more homework and stop asking for unnecessary, ineffective, or marginal for their situation care!
Drug inserts should be written by the FDA and physicians and geared toward clinical utility, NOT by the drug companies and not packed with useless overcomplicated info.
Agree completely. It is amazing the amount of research, reading, and digging needed to find out some simple facts about some things. I have and still get pretty upset at the attitude (such as my former Doctor had) that "it's too complicated for you to understand. I'm smarter than you, so just do as I'm telling you to do."

I'm sure Bill (and others) can tell you that I'm not too dumb and I have a very low threshold on my BS meter... especially when it comes to the health and safety of me or my loved ones. I know a nurse practitioner who was shocked after a little research into an MD she used to work for... who was getting all kinds of money on the side to be a proponent of this or that.
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Re: Gardasil: a quick search brought this site up:

http://www.gardasil-talk.com/?page_id=2

It's worth noting that the basic scoop is that bad things happened to some people after the vaccination. However, bad things happen to unvaccinated people, too. At this point, I'm not aware of any data suggesting serious risks with Gardasil. There is increased pain and fainting compared to other vaccines that has been documented. I also don't doubt that there has been some Gullain Barre or anaphylaxis--the timing makes the latter easy to establish. Since that can happen wtih peanuts, it's back to risk-benefit; HPV causes warts, more importantly, causes almost all cervical cancer, almost all anal cancer too I think, and a lot of head and neck cancer. Given modern sexual practices anyone can get the last one and I'd certainly want my friends and daughters protected against cervical cancer. More later, but I would agree safety monitoring is key and we should be cautious about forcing vaccination, but try not to pander to people who are of the "no flouride! government plot! Autism everywhere / Jenny McCarthy" mindset.
--Ian
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Ok, meeting meeted, votes voted.

"I have since found out that after getting a viral infection during my ordeal, I also became deficient in a number of vitamins & minerals."

Dare I ask? This sounds a little Scientology. Which V+M?

"Patients should do more homework and stop asking for unnecessary, ineffective, or marginal for their situation care!"

"Anyway, I lost a LOT of trust in MDs then, but having also been saved by modern medicine, I still know there are good ones out there."

Doctors are just people, and individuals at that. It's very hard to know if your doctor is biased, adequate, spot-on, or dead wrong unless you do a lot of work yourself. And there's a fine line between wrongly questioning the more trained, more experienced guy based on what you found on the net and allowing the merely human doctor to screw everything up just because they've got some degree. I wish there was a good way to know if you were getting good care; a second opinion isn't a bad start, and you should question everything, but with time pressures and so on, it's tough.

I think they should too, but really, it's not gonna happen. They should also watch their diets and exercise, but look at what's happened in the last 30 years. Right now, we have a tragedy of the commons mentality. Is Grandma sick? Is there anything you can do? Hip replacement, cardiac cath, powerful antibiotics, dementia medicine, ICU admission, acute rehab, readmit to hospital, pacemaker, resuscitation, ICU, ward, ICU, ward, ICU... in each moment the choice is either something or nothing, let Grandma die or possibly save her, and the costs are born only by distant faceless payers, the government, some insurance... who ya gonna pick, grandma or the insurance executive? I have seen one (1) honorable due decline the latest monoclonal antibody chemotherapy (800,000$ per year of life gained) simply noting, "I smoked my whole life, this is no surprise, and I doubt that spending an average of 4 more weeks dying of cancer is worth that bill." Now that we've lost him, we're toast.
--Ian
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

IJ wrote:Doctors are just people, and individuals at that. It's very hard to know if your doctor is biased, adequate, spot-on, or dead wrong unless you do a lot of work yourself.
Here's something I've wondered about for a long time. How is anyone supposed to get by in modern society? Because what you're saying here about doctors and medicine applies equally to every other profession and product. You can spend every waking moment of every day meticulously researching every product and service you pay for, and still not have enough to time to get avoid getting screwed. Caveat emptor is all well and good, but realistically, no emptor has the tempus to caveat everything. Not unless they want to live like a hermit.

This is why I tend to advocate things like consumer protection and corporate responsibility. If we set up our society so that sellers are like circling wolves (e.g. the philosophy that anyone's only responsibility is to their own profits) , then it's inevitable that people are going to get devoured when they're not looking. There's simply no way people can really protect themselves in such an environment. While you're investigating your doctor's ties to pharmacies, your children's toys are being painted with lead, and the computer repair guy is charging you $150 for a five minute fix. Of the hundreds of things you buy in a year, how many do you really know very much about?
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”