posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I will try to be less belligerant in expressing that opinion, though.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
