A new study finds that the level of mercury (you know, the dangerous methyl-mercury that is in jet/aircraft exhaust, fish, fumes from coal-burning power plants, and not the non-existent mercury in childhood vaccines) is no different in non-autistic children than autistic children. Seems to make sense, and further confirm the fact that the (now non-existent) preservative thimerosal in childhood vaccines cannot cause "autism", which is an extremely complex spectrum of diseases that ranges from mild learning disabilities to seizure disorders to extreme mental retardation. Autism spectrum disorder has literally become a catch-all diagnosis for everything that could be neurologically and cognitively wrong with a child, and has become so diagnosed that the perceptioh is the incidence is increasing, even though we have not actually pinpointed what "autism" really is.
The anti-vaccine groups, particularly the group SafeMinds, which purports that neurological disorders are caused by mercury, say that this study's findings are limited and do not apply. It is troubling that even when studies are done that seem to fit their agenda, they are immediately disputed and dismissed for one reason or another. This further demonstrates for me that we should not spend precious research and tax payer dollars for studies that these anti-vaccine groups demand, because they will dismiss the results that don't meet their expectations. They are not out for balanced acceptance of science, they are out to satisfy what they believe. They claim that the pro-vaccine groups are biased, greedy, and self-centered? (While at some autism conferences there are plenty of salespeople hocking vitamins and other non-proven treatments that can "cure" autism and others complaining about the "toxins" our children are exposed to while smoking a cigarette.)
We may both have our passions, on the pro and anti side, but we on the pro side try to keep arguing that the proof of the anti theories are just not there, and the antis just keep either moving the "demon" (thimerosal to too many vaccines at once to squalene to forced vaccination) and press the fear button. For me, the 1 in 3 million chance of (probably coincidentally) getting GBS from a flu vaccine does not outweigh the 1 in 50 chance that I will become seriously ill with the flu. I hope that logic makes sense to others.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
More on H1N1 Vaccine - It's a good thing for all
I don' think I could have summarized the arguments against the H1N1 vaccine than in this post on Science Based Medicine. Dr. Novella's debunking of the silly and false statements of natural medicine proponents against vaccines is a little more abrasive and in-your-face than I prefer, but it's a good summation with all the concrete evidence to refute these "reasons" to not be vaccinated.
I am still stunned, almost appalled, at nurses telling people that vaccines are dangerous, and that they are not going to receive the H1N1 vaccine because it jeopardizes THEIR health, and they shouldn't be guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry. You would think that a profession that esteems itself on patient advocacy, evidence-based thinking, wellness and health promotion, and acting in the interest of the health of self and others would be more apt to be vocally supporting the rapid deployment of a vaccine to prevent illness and death.
Look at the CDC's Flu View. Widespread influenza in almost every state in the country, in OCTOBER. This is very serious, and very concerning. No, there still isn't the risk perception that is needed for people to really be ready to actively seek vaccination. Indeed, this lack of risk perception is the key reason people are rebelling against vaccines. And the argument that it's better to get the disease?! Are you serious?! I hear this argument a lot with the varicella vaccine. Sure, most people had chicken pox as a kid, and they're "fine", but think about this. Did you like having chicken pox? Did you enjoy being covered with itchy, scabby blisters, having a fever for 3 days, missing school for a week, not being able to eat because you had blisters in your throat and your mouth? Would you enjoy having your child go through this, in the name of "natural immunity"?
You have a better chance of being hit by a bus than you do having an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And, these diseases still exist, and they predominantly affect unvaccinated children, and unfortunately, those that cannot be vaccinated.
Fear is a powerful weapon, and unfortunately, the anti-vaccine groups and "natural health" proponents have effectively used it to disuade people from getting vaccinated, which allows disease and deaths to endure. Think about it - the risks vs. benefits (1 in a million chance of adverse reaction vs. an almost certain risk of contracting H1N1 since NO ONE has immunity to it). Put all the other fear and emotion aside, and think about that equation. Think about children and babies struggling to overcome pneumonia secondary to an influenza infection, laying in an ICU, fighting for life. That, to me, is a compelling and reasonable argument for being vaccinated.
I will get mine as soon as I can. I hope you will too.
I am still stunned, almost appalled, at nurses telling people that vaccines are dangerous, and that they are not going to receive the H1N1 vaccine because it jeopardizes THEIR health, and they shouldn't be guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry. You would think that a profession that esteems itself on patient advocacy, evidence-based thinking, wellness and health promotion, and acting in the interest of the health of self and others would be more apt to be vocally supporting the rapid deployment of a vaccine to prevent illness and death.
Look at the CDC's Flu View. Widespread influenza in almost every state in the country, in OCTOBER. This is very serious, and very concerning. No, there still isn't the risk perception that is needed for people to really be ready to actively seek vaccination. Indeed, this lack of risk perception is the key reason people are rebelling against vaccines. And the argument that it's better to get the disease?! Are you serious?! I hear this argument a lot with the varicella vaccine. Sure, most people had chicken pox as a kid, and they're "fine", but think about this. Did you like having chicken pox? Did you enjoy being covered with itchy, scabby blisters, having a fever for 3 days, missing school for a week, not being able to eat because you had blisters in your throat and your mouth? Would you enjoy having your child go through this, in the name of "natural immunity"?
You have a better chance of being hit by a bus than you do having an adverse reaction to a vaccine. And, these diseases still exist, and they predominantly affect unvaccinated children, and unfortunately, those that cannot be vaccinated.
Fear is a powerful weapon, and unfortunately, the anti-vaccine groups and "natural health" proponents have effectively used it to disuade people from getting vaccinated, which allows disease and deaths to endure. Think about it - the risks vs. benefits (1 in a million chance of adverse reaction vs. an almost certain risk of contracting H1N1 since NO ONE has immunity to it). Put all the other fear and emotion aside, and think about that equation. Think about children and babies struggling to overcome pneumonia secondary to an influenza infection, laying in an ICU, fighting for life. That, to me, is a compelling and reasonable argument for being vaccinated.
I will get mine as soon as I can. I hope you will too.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Get the H1N1 vaccine
We are in a pandemic, that is killing people. Mostly small children and pregnant women. We have a safe and effective vaccine to prevent death. Get it when you can.
Here are some of my favorite excuses for not getting vaccinated:
1) The "swine flu" isn't serious.
I would like to begin by having people define "serious". Personally, I find an illness that literally incapacitates you for 5-7 days and fills your waking moments with aches, pain, fever, and generally misery "serious". In other words, I would not want it, nor would I want my child to have it.
2) The vaccine was "fast-tracked", is too new and is not safe.
The H1N1 vaccine is a monovalent flu vaccine. The SAME flu vaccine that has been manufactured and given to millions of people every year for more than a decade. The NIH conducted clinical trials to determine how much dosage people needed, since there was no prior exposure to this particular strain of H1N1. Along the way, they monitored for safety. NO, that is ZERO, major adverse events in either adult or pediatric trial. The time taken to manufacture the vaccine was about the same time taken to make seasonal flu vaccine. It's a licensed product.
In other words, this is actually not a new vaccine. If the strain had emerged earlier in the year, it would most likely have just been included in the seasonal flu vaccine.
3) The vaccine has secret chemicals and dangerous ingredients.
Totally false. Chemo drugs have dangerous toxic chemicals. Vaccines undergo more rigorous testing, scrutiny, and surveillance for safety than any other drug or biological product on the market. But things you can buy from TV ads like Lipozene do not.
Read the PIs for the vaccines from CSL, Medimmune, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Nurses especially need to get vaccinated - we are a critical resource that will be needed to care for sick and dying people (whether they have flu or not). Our jobs put us at risk for exposure, and the vaccine will protect us. We have families that depend on us to care for them, and if we're sick, it's much harder to do that (whether we are exposed to the disease at work or in the community). And we care for people that are sick, weak, and to whom H1N1 could be deadly. Our ethical obligation is to them. We have a responsibility not to expose them to illness whenever we can. This is why we wash our hands. This is why we should be vaccinated for many things, including H1N1.
Save lives - IMMUNIZE!
Here are some of my favorite excuses for not getting vaccinated:
1) The "swine flu" isn't serious.
I would like to begin by having people define "serious". Personally, I find an illness that literally incapacitates you for 5-7 days and fills your waking moments with aches, pain, fever, and generally misery "serious". In other words, I would not want it, nor would I want my child to have it.
2) The vaccine was "fast-tracked", is too new and is not safe.
The H1N1 vaccine is a monovalent flu vaccine. The SAME flu vaccine that has been manufactured and given to millions of people every year for more than a decade. The NIH conducted clinical trials to determine how much dosage people needed, since there was no prior exposure to this particular strain of H1N1. Along the way, they monitored for safety. NO, that is ZERO, major adverse events in either adult or pediatric trial. The time taken to manufacture the vaccine was about the same time taken to make seasonal flu vaccine. It's a licensed product.
In other words, this is actually not a new vaccine. If the strain had emerged earlier in the year, it would most likely have just been included in the seasonal flu vaccine.
3) The vaccine has secret chemicals and dangerous ingredients.
Totally false. Chemo drugs have dangerous toxic chemicals. Vaccines undergo more rigorous testing, scrutiny, and surveillance for safety than any other drug or biological product on the market. But things you can buy from TV ads like Lipozene do not.
Read the PIs for the vaccines from CSL, Medimmune, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Nurses especially need to get vaccinated - we are a critical resource that will be needed to care for sick and dying people (whether they have flu or not). Our jobs put us at risk for exposure, and the vaccine will protect us. We have families that depend on us to care for them, and if we're sick, it's much harder to do that (whether we are exposed to the disease at work or in the community). And we care for people that are sick, weak, and to whom H1N1 could be deadly. Our ethical obligation is to them. We have a responsibility not to expose them to illness whenever we can. This is why we wash our hands. This is why we should be vaccinated for many things, including H1N1.
Save lives - IMMUNIZE!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Why blogs cannot replace respectable, ethical journalism
I am a former journalist, and have a degree in this wide-ranging category of professional reporting and writing. I decided not to enter the journalism field, as I wanted more human connectedness in my career. I have since found that I can do an adequate blend doing both nursing and journalism, and I am continually surprised (pleasantly) at the similarities between the two professions and the way I can meld them into something really fun and challenging.
Anyway, as a former journalism prototype, I have been alarmed by the growing field of rogue journalism that is blogging. Now, granted, large, established newspapers and magazines have changed their business models over the years to allow corporate creep, and let's face it, I don't think Hearst was ever very hands-off about his news outlets, so certainly the Murdoch situation at Fox and the WSJ should not seem novel. But, there is a decorum and standard in professional journalism that purports objectivity and the goal of telling a story and letting the reader draw their own conclusions of the events and actions. It does serve a watch-dog role, and is supposed to be the independent voice of the people in uncovering dirty doings in the public and private sector. But, as the news outlets boast more and more opinion columns and analysis of issue, the bias tends to pop out and the objectivity is diminished. The celebrity nature of the papers and magazines has heeded the celebrity nature of cable news, which has fed a greater need to sell air time and books, and even more pushed the corporate, celebrity model of news as opposed to the independent minded Press.
What is the point of this? Ok. This post in ScienceBasedMedicine on the Huffington Post continually depicting natural medicine/alternative therapies and conventional medicine bashing is thought to be partly to appease the publisher's convictions on these issues. It is biased, clear and simple. We often get into this push/pull on "fair and balanced", and the depiction of fair and balanced becoming more and more obscured and when the other view point is presented, it's depicted in a certain light to make it appear less credible. This also happens when the prevailing view point is depicted as at an equivalent level as the opposing viewpoint, even when that's not the case (i.e. putting someone from the "National Vaccine Information Center" up against the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania).
The fundamental issue with blogs and blog housing sites is they do not prescribe to a code of ethics, their writers are not bound by the journalistic standards that others are, and that the objectivity is not the goal, the "echo chamber is". Yes, there is some merit to the blogs, as they are an independent alternative to the corporate media, but they are slowly falling into the same trap as they find that "free content" doesn't pay the bills. (Plus, they just rip off the newspaper stories anyway, and add their spin to it). Blogs are what they are - online diaries. They are not a replacement to professional journalism.
Anyway, as a former journalism prototype, I have been alarmed by the growing field of rogue journalism that is blogging. Now, granted, large, established newspapers and magazines have changed their business models over the years to allow corporate creep, and let's face it, I don't think Hearst was ever very hands-off about his news outlets, so certainly the Murdoch situation at Fox and the WSJ should not seem novel. But, there is a decorum and standard in professional journalism that purports objectivity and the goal of telling a story and letting the reader draw their own conclusions of the events and actions. It does serve a watch-dog role, and is supposed to be the independent voice of the people in uncovering dirty doings in the public and private sector. But, as the news outlets boast more and more opinion columns and analysis of issue, the bias tends to pop out and the objectivity is diminished. The celebrity nature of the papers and magazines has heeded the celebrity nature of cable news, which has fed a greater need to sell air time and books, and even more pushed the corporate, celebrity model of news as opposed to the independent minded Press.
What is the point of this? Ok. This post in ScienceBasedMedicine on the Huffington Post continually depicting natural medicine/alternative therapies and conventional medicine bashing is thought to be partly to appease the publisher's convictions on these issues. It is biased, clear and simple. We often get into this push/pull on "fair and balanced", and the depiction of fair and balanced becoming more and more obscured and when the other view point is presented, it's depicted in a certain light to make it appear less credible. This also happens when the prevailing view point is depicted as at an equivalent level as the opposing viewpoint, even when that's not the case (i.e. putting someone from the "National Vaccine Information Center" up against the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania).
The fundamental issue with blogs and blog housing sites is they do not prescribe to a code of ethics, their writers are not bound by the journalistic standards that others are, and that the objectivity is not the goal, the "echo chamber is". Yes, there is some merit to the blogs, as they are an independent alternative to the corporate media, but they are slowly falling into the same trap as they find that "free content" doesn't pay the bills. (Plus, they just rip off the newspaper stories anyway, and add their spin to it). Blogs are what they are - online diaries. They are not a replacement to professional journalism.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Health System Reform - Don't kick the can
Last night, I was at the library (you know, those horrible government funded/run competition that keep the book stores out of business), where a lot of people seem to come just to use the free internet. But as I was glancing at what people were doing, I saw a man, probably in his 30s-40s, doing an internet search for "health care unemployed".
I just wanted to cry right there. Lost in all this political screaming match is the attempt to do something good for people - to ensure that they can still get health care if they lose their jobs. People screaming that those without health insurance should "just buy it" are probably not the ones without jobs being asked to pay upwards of $800 a month for a family health insurance plan.
Health care is not about being of a certain party or being older. It is about treating others with dignity and doing something good for humanity. The screaming match that this has become, and the attempts to make it into a political victory for either side are disheartening.
Prohibit nefarious insurance practices.
Provide ample funding for federally qualified health centers (enacted by the Bush admin.).
Subsidize health insurance.
Ensure an adequate health workforce (including nurses - give APRNs a full scope of practice).
Lay the groundwork for a health system that pays for quality, not quantity.
We're Americans, and we don't like to hear that we should do some preventative maintenance until the wheels fall off the car. Then we howl and complain "How could this have happened." In 10 years, Medicare will cost us more than 1/2 our GDP. It will drive our economy into the ground.
It's a must, don't kick the can down, because at some point, the can's going to wear down.
I just wanted to cry right there. Lost in all this political screaming match is the attempt to do something good for people - to ensure that they can still get health care if they lose their jobs. People screaming that those without health insurance should "just buy it" are probably not the ones without jobs being asked to pay upwards of $800 a month for a family health insurance plan.
Health care is not about being of a certain party or being older. It is about treating others with dignity and doing something good for humanity. The screaming match that this has become, and the attempts to make it into a political victory for either side are disheartening.
Prohibit nefarious insurance practices.
Provide ample funding for federally qualified health centers (enacted by the Bush admin.).
Subsidize health insurance.
Ensure an adequate health workforce (including nurses - give APRNs a full scope of practice).
Lay the groundwork for a health system that pays for quality, not quantity.
We're Americans, and we don't like to hear that we should do some preventative maintenance until the wheels fall off the car. Then we howl and complain "How could this have happened." In 10 years, Medicare will cost us more than 1/2 our GDP. It will drive our economy into the ground.
It's a must, don't kick the can down, because at some point, the can's going to wear down.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What the unfortunate disruptions at town halls remind me of
Disagreement is part of any intellectual discussion. Coming to consensus is hard. People are angry and feeling rubbed after the fallout of the unpopular bailouts and subsequent outrage over bonuses. People are angry, and they're taking it out on the legislator, even though they probably don't have the concerns they say they do over health (insurance) reform.
But watching videos of disrupted town halls kind of reminds me of Questions for the Prime Minister, where booing and jeering are part of parliamentary process. A *gasp* socialist country! Isn't that ironic...
But watching videos of disrupted town halls kind of reminds me of Questions for the Prime Minister, where booing and jeering are part of parliamentary process. A *gasp* socialist country! Isn't that ironic...
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Judging "studies" validity
I left a recent post about studies with inconclusive and even silly findings. This article in ScieneBasedMedicine discusses the way to judge a study's worth. Among them are:
The credibility of the researcher.
The credibility of the journal.
The credibility of the research itself.
Evidence based medicine is a little trickier - other things to look for:
The study's funding source. A biggie. The "big bad boys" aka phram. companies have been known to cook the books in terms of getting research to be favorable to their product. But in any case, does the funding source show any possible conflict of interest, or raise any red flags of the research findings.
For example: Is it a study showing how a drug is more effective than exercise and diet to reduce cholesterol? If so, did the drug company pay for the study? (ehem, JUPITER trials).
The hypotheses of the study. Sometimes studies are done without an end goal, or just seem to be willy-nilly. This also raises red flags - what was it the researchers were trying to accomplish? The study should have a sound hypotheses that should either be proven or not proven. Other "findings" sometimes are purposefully contrived, or even just incidental. Neither is as sound as a hypotheses being proven or not.
The credibility of the researcher.
The credibility of the journal.
The credibility of the research itself.
Evidence based medicine is a little trickier - other things to look for:
The study's funding source. A biggie. The "big bad boys" aka phram. companies have been known to cook the books in terms of getting research to be favorable to their product. But in any case, does the funding source show any possible conflict of interest, or raise any red flags of the research findings.
For example: Is it a study showing how a drug is more effective than exercise and diet to reduce cholesterol? If so, did the drug company pay for the study? (ehem, JUPITER trials).
The hypotheses of the study. Sometimes studies are done without an end goal, or just seem to be willy-nilly. This also raises red flags - what was it the researchers were trying to accomplish? The study should have a sound hypotheses that should either be proven or not proven. Other "findings" sometimes are purposefully contrived, or even just incidental. Neither is as sound as a hypotheses being proven or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
