What are your guys feelings on this oft-controversial subject?
What would be a good place to find some unbiased research and viewpoints?
Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The anti-vaccination camp is primarily made up of ignorant and/or crazy people. Vaccinations save lives, and any parents who fails to vaccinate their children puts my children (and me) at risk.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
There is controversy about vaccination to about the same extent that there is controversy about the Earth being round.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anti-vax people are stupid idiots and this is not a 'lets just agree to disagree' thing because their idiocy is of a sort that actively endangers others. In case anyone here is part of the anti-vax crowd: No, I'm not going to be polite and respectful to your histrionic pseudoscience; you're putting your own and other people's children at risk because you've fallen for an idiot mentality. It must be aggressively shamed and curtailed. The end.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
For some reason, there's a misconception in discussions of vaccination regarding a link to autism, but the paper which initially supported that theory has been proven to be a load of nonsense which rightfully discredited the career and reputation of the hack who claimed its accuracy. A disgrace to the psychological sciences.
As others have said above, the benefits of vaccination so vastly outnumber any alleged negatives that it's really not much of a debate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah this is a subject that shouldn't be controversial.
A good place to start when looking for "unbiased" articles: Anything pro-vaccination. The WHO or Red Cross or pretty much pick-your-health-organization are great sources, but honestly, anything pro-vaccination is likely to be largely unbiased, assuming "unbiased" = "based in fact."
Seriously. Vaccinations are our friends. It freaking boggles my mind that we're seeing resurgences in this country of diseases we had on the ropes thirty years ago, and I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the anti-vax crazies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah this is a subject that shouldn't be controversial.
A good place to start when looking for "unbiased" articles: Anything pro-vaccination. The WHO or Red Cross or pretty much pick-your-health-organization are great sources, but honestly, anything pro-vaccination is likely to be largely unbiased, assuming "unbiased" = "based in fact."
Seriously. Vaccinations are our friends. It freaking boggles my mind that we're seeing resurgences in this country of diseases we had on the ropes thirty years ago, and I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the anti-vax crazies.
I agree with every word of this post. And when Dan Frank and I agree, it means something! Posted by RivalOfTheRose (Member # 11535) on :
Well, most people here seem smarter than the average bear. I had no idea it was such a non-issue. I guess the anti-vax crowd had some pretty effective propaganda for awhile. Thanks!
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: For some reason, there's a misconception in discussions of vaccination regarding a link to autism, but the paper which initially supported that theory has been proven to be a load of nonsense which rightfully discredited the career and reputation of the hack who claimed its accuracy. A disgrace to the psychological sciences.
You're letting it off a little easy. Plenty of things turn out to be "loads of nonsense" after further evidence comes to light, but this paper was actual fraud. There were no honest mistakes associated with that Lancet article, this guy was falsifying data to serve his purposes. He should share a cell with Kevin Trudeau in hell.
I just heard a podcast concerning the effects of anti-vaccination propaganda, and they presented a graph which shows association between reduced vaccinations and increased incidence of disease. Every time the percentage of vaccinated people in a population edges below a critical mass (which has happened a few times recently), these deadly diseases spike dramadically. It's a potent reminder of the real-world costs of pseudoscience.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
What about faith healing and the dangers of MSG? Or artificial sweeteners?
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Not exactly what you were asking, but as a side note, my poor daughter got the flu a few weeks ago. We vaccinate religiously annually. Just really bad luck. Poor kid was so miserable.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: He should share a cell with Kevin Trudeau in hell.
You must work for BIG-PHARMA! Kevin told me, late one night, that people like you would want to make millions off of people like when all I really need to do is buy his book for $50 and cure all diseases and aging.
Nice try Speed. I bet you were "educated" in "science" at a state propaganda university. Kevin has secrets you don't want me to know about or you will loose your job.
[/end channeling my neighbor]
Ewweee that tasted gross. I need to scrub my brain. Is it just me or does Trudeau remind anyone else of Santorum?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Speed: Well, I was trying to maintain a civil tone for the sake of being generally respectful. Though, I agree with what you're saying; I've never personally felt the need to express hostility when I might risk offending the sensibilities of the person who originally asked about the issue. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Right on, Steve. I didn't mean it to sound like I was refuting what you were saying. I thought your post was right on, I just wanted to add a little, in case anyone started to have sympathy with Wakefield. Is my venom showing?
I get your point on tone, though. I hope it's clear that all my distaste is directed at the con artists behind the misinformation, and not toward the parents who are trying to do their best for their children.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by RivalOfTheRose: Well, most people here seem smarter than the average bear. I had no idea it was such a non-issue. I guess the anti-vax crowd had some pretty effective propaganda for awhile. Thanks!
I think the confounding variable is we are identifying autism a lot more than we have in the past. And if you follow the fear, it all traces back to a single doctor who was clearly trying to profit by saying autism was caused by vaccinations without any evidence.
He tapped into the fear, got followers, and now it's been a mess trying to sort all those hysterical people out.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I think the only reason not to vaccinate would be if your child had some allergy to something in the vaccination.
I had a co-worker years ago who caught whooping cough from someone else at work, right after she returned from maternity leave, and her baby caught it from her. The baby ended up in the hospital with thousands of dollars in bills for the family before it was all done. I think the person who was the original carrier didn't grow up in the U.S., though, so maybe that's reason enough the he wasn't vaccinated. But it's definitely reason enough to vaccinate kids - to avoid catching stuff from unvaccinated people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: What about faith healing and the dangers of MSG? Or artificial sweeteners?
Heh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think this is an easy issue to scare people with because autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and people need something easy to blame, and they need something easy to do to thwart it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Is it just me or does Trudeau remind anyone else of Santorum?
Aaagh! If Santorum wasn't already ruined for me, he would be now.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think this is an easy issue to scare people with because autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and people need something easy to blame, and they need something easy to do to thwart it.
Since "autism rates" depend on how many people get diagnosed, and not so much on how many people actually have an autism-spectrum disorder, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that autism rates have skyrocketed.
Autism diagnoses have gone up, though.
On the radio this morning I heard a psychologist mentioning some things that seem to increase risk. One of them was premature birth. So as we get better at saving premature babies from dying, we might see a higher incidence of autism-spectrum disorders (which would contribute to the higher rate of diagnosis).
However, he also mentioned that over-diagnosis seems to be a problem, and a lot of the numbers people react to (or the anecdotes they hear) don't distinguish much between different ranges on the spectrum.
I'm glad that I'm hearing less lately from the anti-vaccination crowd. I hope the misinformation is starting to lose its steam.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Oh thank goodness. I saw the OP last night and figured Hatrack would handle it.
Woo is really seductive. I thought about separating the MMR for my son because--I don't know? I was on a long maternity leave and didn't have enough to think about? Anyway, it was too much work and I'm pretty lazy. Then I got off of all the breastfeeding forums and started reading science blogs. And yeah. Science ftw.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: I had a co-worker years ago who caught whooping cough from someone else at work, right after she returned from maternity leave, and her baby caught it from her. The baby ended up in the hospital with thousands of dollars in bills for the family before it was all done. I think the person who was the original carrier didn't grow up in the U.S., though, so maybe that's reason enough the he wasn't vaccinated. But it's definitely reason enough to vaccinate kids - to avoid catching stuff from unvaccinated people.
Whooping cough causes problems because it's turned out that vaccinations given in childhood lose effectiveness as those children grow up. However, until just a few years ago (I believe), there wasn't a vaccination approved for adults, so the adult population is more susceptible than it should be. I'm not sure if the adult booster is available to all yet, but I got it when my youngest was born (a year and a half ago) and my husband got it from the military as part of their standard set.
--Mel
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: I'm not sure if the adult booster is available to all yet
Yes. As of about 12-18 months ago, IIRC.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think this is an easy issue to scare people with because autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and people need something easy to blame, and they need something easy to do to thwart it.
Since "autism rates" depend on how many people get diagnosed, and not so much on how many people actually have an autism-spectrum disorder, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that autism rates have skyrocketed.
Autism diagnoses have gone up, though.
On the radio this morning I heard a psychologist mentioning some things that seem to increase risk. One of them was premature birth. So as we get better at saving premature babies from dying, we might see a higher incidence of autism-spectrum disorders (which would contribute to the higher rate of diagnosis).
However, he also mentioned that over-diagnosis seems to be a problem, and a lot of the numbers people react to (or the anecdotes they hear) don't distinguish much between different ranges on the spectrum.
I'm glad that I'm hearing less lately from the anti-vaccination crowd. I hope the misinformation is starting to lose its steam.
I should clarify. I was referring to the constant deluge of news reports we get all the time that autism rates are rising. There was just one two days ago that cases are something like 1 in 88 now.
Premature births have also been on a steady rise for years, not just our ability to keep them alive, but actual premature births.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I got diagnosed with Asperger's last year. I do not believe vaccines contribute to it. The thing is, all medicines have a risk, but these diseases have KILLED people. At one time children would die of things like measles. Vaccines are useful and save lives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think this is an easy issue to scare people with because autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and people need something easy to blame, and they need something easy to do to thwart it.
Since "autism rates" depend on how many people get diagnosed, and not so much on how many people actually have an autism-spectrum disorder, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that autism rates have skyrocketed.
Autism diagnoses have gone up, though.
On the radio this morning I heard a psychologist mentioning some things that seem to increase risk. One of them was premature birth. So as we get better at saving premature babies from dying, we might see a higher incidence of autism-spectrum disorders (which would contribute to the higher rate of diagnosis).
However, he also mentioned that over-diagnosis seems to be a problem, and a lot of the numbers people react to (or the anecdotes they hear) don't distinguish much between different ranges on the spectrum.
I'm glad that I'm hearing less lately from the anti-vaccination crowd. I hope the misinformation is starting to lose its steam.
I should clarify. I was referring to the constant deluge of news reports we get all the time that autism rates are rising.
Ammunition for my main man Lyrhawn.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Honestly, there are risks in vaccine. They are lower and generally less "bad" than the disease, but they exist. In an ideal for my child world, every other child would be vaccinated and with 99.999% vaccination rate, herd immunity would protect my child and I would get to take zero risk. However, that is not possible and so we immunize. One person cheats, great reward for that person. Everyone cheats, village dies. Complicating this, there are some people for whom immunizations don't work (my father in law has been immunized repeatedly for hep A and it just won't take) or the risk for complication is higher (a variety of diseases) or they are too young or immunity has worn off with age. So, if we had a 100% immunization rate, we still wouldn't have 100% immunity. So, as a society, we need to keep the herd immunity protection for the cases were vaccinations don't work. Which all leads to the idea that those who don't vaccinate should be driven from society in order to protect society as a whole. They are "cheating" and it cannot be allowed. I know this is discussed in game theory but I don't remember what the proper name is- I seem to recall something about a hunter who is lazy and that is ok, but when everyone is lazy that leads to village starving.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wrote a post about this past night, and it got lost. So I refreshed, and found that Hatrack had already taken care of it for me.
GO TEAM HATRACK!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think this is an easy issue to scare people with because autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and people need something easy to blame, and they need something easy to do to thwart it.
Since "autism rates" depend on how many people get diagnosed, and not so much on how many people actually have an autism-spectrum disorder, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that autism rates have skyrocketed.
Autism diagnoses have gone up, though.
On the radio this morning I heard a psychologist mentioning some things that seem to increase risk. One of them was premature birth. So as we get better at saving premature babies from dying, we might see a higher incidence of autism-spectrum disorders (which would contribute to the higher rate of diagnosis).
However, he also mentioned that over-diagnosis seems to be a problem, and a lot of the numbers people react to (or the anecdotes they hear) don't distinguish much between different ranges on the spectrum.
I'm glad that I'm hearing less lately from the anti-vaccination crowd. I hope the misinformation is starting to lose its steam.
I should clarify. I was referring to the constant deluge of news reports we get all the time that autism rates are rising.
Though this one is a bit more measured.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is an article in Scientific American about polio vaccines around the world and the ethical problem with them. Because they use a live vaccine and include 3 variants of polio, there is an argument that they do more harm than good. Strain 2 has not been detected except for the vaccine (sometimes the weak form becomes active). It looks like they are working on phasing that one out and instead using a vaccine with just 1 and 3 but they need to set it up right. So, if you are in a third world country, we can debate whether or not you should get the live polio vaccine.
Posted by taibreamh (Member # 12412) on :
My policy is to read about all possible side effects of the vaccines. Then read about all symptoms of the diseases that these vaccines are preventing. Vaccinating my kids wins hands down. Reading about tetanus gives me nightmares. Eurgh.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
If this forum had a "rep" function, I would absolutely rep some of the replies in this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm starting to think that it's just CNN that's pushing it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I wrote a post about this past night, and it got lost. So I refreshed, and found that Hatrack had already taken care of it for me.
GO TEAM HATRACK!
One thing this forum's community has (thankfully) never dabbled in is anti-vax insanity. There was that one fly-by-night poster, named spambuster or something. That's it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My father in law decided to not get a flu shot when h1n1 first hit...God knows why, as he had a weakened immune system due to childhood cancer. He ended up in the ICU for 4 months and a stroke from a blood clot that was iv related and then passed away shortly there after of stomach cancer...not sure if that last was related to not getting vaccinated or not, but I'm sure the ICU extended stay didn't help any.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Honestly, there are risks in vaccine. They are lower and generally less "bad" than the disease, but they exist. In an ideal for my child world, every other child would be vaccinated and with 99.999% vaccination rate, herd immunity would protect my child and I would get to take zero risk. However, that is not possible and so we immunize. One person cheats, great reward for that person. Everyone cheats, village dies.
Excellent points. Pretty well-said, too.
The reason we actually STARTED vaccinating in the first place is because it WORKS when it's done right. It's not just a scam by big Pharma. It started well before WWII, after which Big Pharma really started having too much power/money.
I do have a lot of friends who are into alternative health. Some of them are anti-vaccine. They're wrong, IMHO, but I UNDERSTAND why they are suspicious. They don't trust Big Pharma entirely, and neither do I. Rushing drugs to market and hiding negative studies do NOT inspire trust.
Childhood vaccines have relatively little to do with Big Pharma, though. They have been around since before Big Pharma was big. They're no greed-based conspiracy.
I do like to make sure a particular vaccine is proven before I'll take it, though. I refused to allow my daughter to be vaccinated against chicken pox, back in the late 90s, and that vaccine was actually taken off the market later, due to safety issues. Smart dad is smart. ROFL
I also don't take the flu vaccine. The studies I've seen on its efficacy aren't particularly encouraging, and I'm healthy anyway. I can survive the flu.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: I refused to allow my daughter to be vaccinated against chicken pox, back in the late 90s, and that vaccine was actually taken off the market later, due to safety issues.
Funny. The same vaccine is still in use. And that would be the time period that all three of my kids received varicella vaccinations, so I would have had to be notified if there was a problem.
Back-patting-dad must have really long arms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And a peculiar memory, no less. Surely a different chicken pox vaccine is what was meant?
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Funny. The same vaccine is still in use. And that would be the time period that all three of my kids received varicella vaccinations, so I would have had to be notified if there was a problem.
Back-patting-dad must have really long arms.
The vaccination I was offered for her was indeed taken off the market,, re-formulated, and brought back. I remember it. There was a big to-do about it in the news. ("Big" is relative. I was really focused on this sort of thing back then, since I was having to make these kinds of decisions, and I took the decision-making process fairly seriously.)
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
As far as the whooping cough incident I related, yeah it's possible that the people involved had been vaccinated but the vaccinations had expired. However, a year or so ago, I had to get a tetanus shot and it was the whole DTP shot, not just tetanus. So if you get a tetanus booster every 10 years, as recommended, you can get the whole thing at once.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, but that has only been true for the last couple years or so. When I had a tetanus booster ~11 years ago, it was just tetanus.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
IUTBAD, I wonder if you are thinking about the rotavirus vaccination (against a virus that causes about a week of diarrhea). That was the only US one pulled in the last decade, IIRC.
It was pulled because of concerns about a link with intussussception which, on review of the evidence, turned out to be unfounded concerns. However, new formulations were already in the works, so it was re-released in revamped form. But there wasn't really a problem with the original after all.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: IUTBAD, I wonder if you are thinking about the rotavirus vaccination (against a virus that causes about a week of diarrhea). That was the only US one pulled in the last decade, IIRC.
It was pulled because of concerns about a link with intussussception which, on review of the evidence, turned out to be unfounded concerns. However, new formulations were already in the works, so it was re-released in revamped form. But there wasn't really a problem with the original after all.
No, IIRC, the time frame would have been '99 or 2000, and I specifically remember it was the chicken pox vaccine. It was reformulated and re-released. I don't remember if it was a switch from live to dead virus, or what.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Can't find any record of a varicella vaccine recall in 1999 or 2000.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
Well, you weren't working in a pediatrician's office around that time, were you? I don't think Big Pharma would exactly trumpet it around. I remember it making the news, IIRC.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... you know that "Big Pharma" doesn't control the news, right?
Recalls aren't hidden from the public. Heck, that would sort of make it hard to recall anything in the first place, neh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Well, you weren't working in a pediatrician's office around that time, were you?
CT was, though.
And all vaccine recalls are stored in databases. Or do you think "big pharma" controls those too?
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm probably going to regret asking this, but... you know that "Big Pharma" doesn't control the news, right?
Recalls aren't hidden from the public. Heck, that would sort of make it hard to recall anything in the first place, neh?
You trust Big Pharma not to put quiet pressure on news outlets?
Fox. Henhouse. Guarding. Bad bad bad.
And they, of course, pay people to edit Wikipedia. You know it.
I don't trust them farther than I can throw them. They've been caught hiding negative study results many times.
They have no credibility. Remember Accutane? Fen-phen? The newer the drug, the less I trust it.
But this is all distracting from the fact that nobody here was a nurse/doctor in pediatrics at that time. I don't even entirely trust my memory on this, either, so until such a person shows up, the question has to remain open, at least for me.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: IUTBAD, I wonder if you are thinking about the rotavirus vaccination (against a virus that causes about a week of diarrhea). That was the only US one pulled in the last decade, IIRC.
It was pulled because of concerns about a link with intussussception which, on review of the evidence, turned out to be unfounded concerns. However, new formulations were already in the works, so it was re-released in revamped form. But there wasn't really a problem with the original after all.
So you were, in fact, giving/prescribing vaccines to infants in the late 90s and early 2000s? Or is rivka making claims she can't substantiate? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT is certainly a pediatrician. I can't swear to what years, precisely, she has practiced medicine.
And to be clear, I don't think every new drug is something everyone should use. I have grave concerns about fen-phen's new cousin Qnexa, for example. But it's a big leap from that to conspiracy theories and "big pharma" boogeymen.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
CT is a pediatrician if I remember correctly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I was certain this is what would happen, even before CT put her thoughts in (and please, Drummer, spare us the notion that she is either too gullible, too poorly informed, or not honest enough to be able to tell us if a vaccine was or wasn't pulled. It'd be seriously irritating, and it would make you look deeply foolish, which is saying something given how quick you are to pull the conspiracy card.)
Which is easier and more flattering to one's vanity, I wonder: the notion that vast, incredibly powerful and subtle conspiracies control the world around us, rendering us powerless to make changes in the world or believe anything we're told or even learn...or admitting that, whoops, I misremembered something from over a decade ago, my bad.
That's all it would take to emerge from this exchange with some dignity for you, Drummer. But this? What you're doing here?
'Vaccines are great, but not always, because man you can't trust Big Pharma. Why this one time, a vaccine was taken off the market, which I noticed because of my proactive investigation.'
'Actually, I can't find any record of that vaccine being handled the way you describe, and here's why I know that.'
'Well, what, you trust Big Pharma? And what're you, a pediatrician or something?'
'Well now that you mention it, this smart, well informed, well spoken and trustworthy lady over here is, and she doesn't know what you're talking about either.'
'Look, Big Pharma controls the media AND Wikipedia, don't be a sap and think otherwise!'
-----
So listen, Drummer, is there anything that WOULD persuade you you're wrong about this? Any source, any authority, any information that you can imagine? Or can we just skip past trying to convince the ill-informed conspiracy theorist about real-world facts, because disliked facts are immediately rejected as being part of the system?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: I also don't take the flu vaccine. The studies I've seen on its efficacy aren't particularly encouraging, and I'm healthy anyway. I can survive the flu.
This is one of my pet peeve; when people think vaccinations are there for their benefit only rather than the health of those around them. My brother has diabetes and my dad has MS and neither of them responds well the actual flu shot. I remember feeling quite proud that my brother's roommates went out and got their flu shots. They're three very healthy young men who would bounce right back if they came down with the flu, but my brother would have a much harder time of it. Ever since my cardiac episode, I've been very wary of any sort of injection but my mom wouldn't let me come for the holidays until I had been vaccinated so I got friends to help me out and make sure I was okay. And its a good thing I was able to tolerate it because the flu would land me in the hospital.
Even before I developed NCS, before my brother became diabetic, before I knew about my dad's MS, I made it a point to get a flu shot and I haven't caught the flu since I started making this a habit in my teen years. More importantly, I didn't get the flu and pass it on to someone else.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
CT is certainly a pediatrician. I can't swear to what years, precisely, she has practiced medicine.
And to be clear, I don't think every new drug is something everyone should use. I have grave concerns about fen-phen's new cousin Qnexa, for example. But it's a big leap from that to conspiracy theories and "big pharma" boogeymen.
What she said. Thanks, Rivka.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, I was certain this is what would happen, even before CT put her thoughts in (and please, Drummer, spare us the notion that she is either too gullible, too poorly informed, or not honest enough to be able to tell us if a vaccine was or wasn't pulled. It'd be seriously irritating, and it would make you look deeply foolish, which is saying something given how quick you are to pull the conspiracy card.)
Which is easier and more flattering to one's vanity, I wonder: the notion that vast, incredibly powerful and subtle conspiracies control the world around us, rendering us powerless to make changes in the world or believe anything we're told or even learn...or admitting that, whoops, I misremembered something from over a decade ago, my bad.
That's all it would take to emerge from this exchange with some dignity for you, Drummer. But this? What you're doing here?
'Vaccines are great, but not always, because man you can't trust Big Pharma. Why this one time, a vaccine was taken off the market, which I noticed because of my proactive investigation.'
'Actually, I can't find any record of that vaccine being handled the way you describe, and here's why I know that.'
'Well, what, you trust Big Pharma? And what're you, a pediatrician or something?'
'Well now that you mention it, this smart, well informed, well spoken and trustworthy lady over here is, and she doesn't know what you're talking about either.'
'Look, Big Pharma controls the media AND Wikipedia, don't be a sap and think otherwise!'
-----
So listen, Drummer, is there anything that WOULD persuade you you're wrong about this? Any source, any authority, any information that you can imagine? Or can we just skip past trying to convince the ill-informed conspiracy theorist about real-world facts, because disliked facts are immediately rejected as being part of the system?
Dude, your posts are boring. I'm way more interested in facts than your pitiful attempt to relate to me. Was anybody giving vaccines to infants during that time frame or not? CT? Anybody?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, that wasn't an attempt to relate to you. That was me mocking your lazy, self-flattering (because hey, no responsibilities if there's a huge conspiracy, nothing to feel guilty about, only victimized) style of posts.
Now it's not enough that an actual practicing doctor has weighed in: they must also have been practicing then, and giving out that specific vaccine, I guess because Big Pharma doctored the records of which vaccines were pulled and which weren't.
Should someone come forth who fits your current requirements, there will then be others. Maybe they'll need to have been prescribing in your region or even your town. Maybe they'll need to post multiple independent corroborating sources. Maybe they'll need to establish they're free from Big Pharma's influence.
What I know WON'T happen is you admitting that you're either misremembering things, or outright made some of it up.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Yes, I am a pediatrician.
Yes, I was in a pediatric clinic giving vaccinations at the time in question. Granted, I was still in training and not working under my own license yet, but I was the one doing the stabbing. And keeping up with current recommendations in the research and standards literature was a good part of my job description.
Actually, just after that I was in training under Dr. Thomas Saari, who is (and was) the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Immunization Task Force.
That pretty much makes him the official US national guru on vaccinations, insofar as there is one. Tom was reviewing the RotaShield (rotavirus vaccine) data in 1999 and early 2000, and he gave a series of talks in 2001 on what was happening with it and why it was likely to be reinstated in one form or another after the review was completed. He never mentioned anything about a varicella vaccine recall. The CDC FAQ page about recalled vaccines doesn't mention it, either. It does mention the RotaShield controversy at the 1999-2000 timeframe.
I suspect you just may have the confused the details. It's been over a decade, after all. Totally understandable.
---
PS: [Not that anyone has, but] if anyone ever impugns the knowledge base or ethics of Tom Saari, he or she would then be a first class dickwad. Tom Saari was also the child abuse expert for that area, and I had seen him come in -- after fully retiring from active practice -- at 2 in the morning to make sure an abused child was not released from the emergency room back into an unsafe situation.
I called him in for backup, as I didn't have enough pull at he time. He was sick, but he got up, got dressed, left his grandchildren and made damn sure that child stayed safe.
This is not a man who plays fast and loose with anything important. As a country, we are lucky to have him.
[ April 03, 2012, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: if anyone ever impugns the knowledge base or ethics of Tom Saari, he or she would then be a first class dickwad.
I suspect that this would largely depend on one's definition of 'impugn' and 'knowledge base.'
There's a whole vortex of intention and meaning that I don't want to get sucked into.
That is, I don't have your experience with the man. I'm not particularly concerned with what he's like personally anyway. I am interested in his data. If the data is good, fine; if the data is incorrect or if his methods are dishonest, etc, etc: then not so fine.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I would hope that if someone were to call into question the knowledge base or ethics of a person in that level of position, that such an issue would not be done frivolously or just for internet kindling. (Not that this is what you are doing, Scott, of course.)
My point is to say that I do not think it could be done in this case other than frivolously, from what I know. And I do know a lot about this area in particular.
However, as is always the case, we may agree to disagree. Or you may declare a decided apathy about it, or you may carve out a space in which you rightfully lay claim to no special knowledge and reserve the right to impugn the knowledge base or motives of this particular person should you ever see fit.
That's fine. I wouldn't ever call you a dickwad, although I may find the prospect of finding such a position to be fit an incredible one.
I have a lot of sympathy with the skeptical stance and cynicism about the role of big business in healthcare. I share a lot of it. I find myself having less patience sometimes than I should when it edges onto raising concerns about people I actually have worked with for many years and who I could only aspire to be like someday if I am very good. Not because I am awestruck or respect the position, but because these are people I worked back to back with literally saving lives. And time and time again, month after month after month, they did more -- and pushed those who worked for them to do more, and better, and flawlessly, rigorously, and without any give for compromise in ethics, without faltering.
That does make me snippy and cranky. It is my fault. I'll work on it, and I will remember that if I had not had that experience, I would not feel this way. It's a good reminder.
---
Edit: Is his data good and correct? Yes. Are his methods honest? Yes.
Would Dagonee lie about the law, or write a legal opinion haphazardly or without care for accuracy? No. Would dkw be anything other than rigorous in theological anlysis? No. Would ketchupqueen be deliberately careless in disseminating car seat information? No. Just not the way they are. I feel the same about Tom, but even moreso, because my experience with him was almost daily for 3 years, and I saw his mettle through the easy days and the hard.
You didn't. I get that. I did. I can't forget that.
But 'tis okay to disagree. I just won't join you on this one. I will try to be less belligerant in expressing that opinion, though.
[ April 03, 2012, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think I disagree with you.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Now that is a splendid way to start my day! Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
CT is awesome. That is all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I sometimes wonder if she isn't aware that she's paid well in advance for awesomeness premiums. Just keeps getting more and more ahead. If rad were a mortgage, I suspect she'd have that house in a year:)
-----
In other news as unsurprising as CT is awesome, the silence from Drummer is simply deafening!
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I hope that iutbad is mature enough to return to this thread and gracefully acknowledge that CT was able to give accurate information and fulfill the criteria set forth by iutbad.
CT, I love hearing from you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes....several of us were in the medical field, and even worked with children at that time. No, the chickenpox vaccine was never recalled.
I worked DEVELOPING vaccines for the Army, so I would qualify as something of an expert, although I am a nurse (and was a medic) not a doctor. Hell, I WROTE a position paper on informeed consent and the MRVS program that was ratified by the senate oversight committee, and our suggestions.....75% of which were my personal concerns....were read to Congress in 1996 (I wrote it in 1995) and helped make changes to the MRVS that were still in effect 5 years ago when I talked to some of my old DR's from Ft. Detrick.
I probably know more about the testing process, before and after human trials, than anyone else here. Unless CT or someone else worked as a DR during experimental trials for worldwide vaccination programs, of course. I personally had a hand in 12 vaccination studies between 1992 and 1995.
And I put my money where my studies were....I was a final stage human subject for 4 of those....not for any of the ones I worked on as a medic, of course, but for other Dr's and studies.
Just sayin'....
[ April 04, 2012, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can't get more establishment than that, man. In the unlikely event you're actually trustworthy with that background, Big Pharma would make sure you didn't learn the truth!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
please tell big pharma they are 18 years behind on my hush money payments. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: That does make me snippy and cranky.
I'm skeptical.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
You guys ...
I hope IUTBAD finds this a very small thing in the grand discourse that is Hatrack & doesn't let the friction (such as it is) make any of us less likely to post.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Just something I wanted to add to the initial question: I subscribe to Science Blogs Select, one of which is Respectful Insolence - slightly more belligerent in its language than I would be myself, but it's a consistent debunker of pseudoscience in the medical field that I find provides great sources and reasoning for these types of questions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thanks, I will check it out. I love Snopes.com for the real life responses to urban legends, so I will probably love this site too for it's approach to science. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And when Dan Frank and I agree, it means something!
It means the Mayans were right!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Remember Accutane?
I do remember Accutane. I was on it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And when Dan Frank and I agree, it means something!
It means the Mayans were right!
About what? They certainly had some great notions about chocolate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
They did!
Uh oh we're agreeing again.
But no, seriously, I think there are probably almost as many topics where Rivka and I agree as not. Maybe they don't come up on Hatrack as much (or maybe I just don't comment as much, as my natural inclination is usually only to comment when I feel I have something to say).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Remember Accutane?
I do remember Accutane. I was on it.
Likewise.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm not sure what sort of controversy he might be referring to on the Accutane front. When it was prescribed to me, at least, the doctor spent practically two hours going through a very detailed packet about any and all possible side effects with me as well as with my parents before even suggesting we use it. We were made fully aware of any sort of side effects which might occur, and he put us in contact with other specialists in the case that any of the side effects might occur. I don't think doctors just go prescribing drugs all willy nilly just because they're out there. They have a professional responsibility to their patients.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I don't think doctors just go prescribing drugs all willy nilly just because they're out there.
They do when Big Pharma makes them, Steve.
Wake up, Sheeple!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The Accutane that people get now, and probably when you guys got it, is different from when it first came out. I was one of the first people to have it offered for use, right after it was initially cleared by the FDA, and agreed to use it.....then my mom overruled me, even though I was almost 18 and she had said it was my choice. About 2-3 years later they found out that the odds were even worse then they though of adverse reaction, some of them life threatening, so they revamped how it was used.
They did NOT reformulate it, but they recommended dosing is much less than when it was first offered. They spent significant time explaining the risks to us, and it can cause liver damage IIRC....it was well over 20 years ago, and I never did take it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I'm not sure what sort of controversy he might be referring to on the Accutane front. When it was prescribed to me, at least, the doctor spent practically two hours going through a very detailed packet about any and all possible side effects with me as well as with my parents before even suggesting we use it. We were made fully aware of any sort of side effects which might occur, and he put us in contact with other specialists in the case that any of the side effects might occur. I don't think doctors just go prescribing drugs all willy nilly just because they're out there. They have a professional responsibility to their patients.
I had to get a blood draw and full panel done monthly to make sure it wasn't causing adverse reactions. I had to push each individual pill through a bubble with a visual NO PREGNANCY warning alongside very boldly worded instructions to read all of the associated printed drug information. The literature I had to go through as part of the decision to use the pill was .. yup.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I also had to undergo the blood tests and was also asked to keep a food journal, so they could better monitor my nutrition during the period I was taking the medication to determine if any abnormalities occurred as a result of diet or from the Accutate prescription. They were very thorough.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
If Santorum wasn't already ruined for me, he would be now.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)