Doctors and Vaccines - Page 2

[Deborah]

Mixing apples and oranges in this thread.

Where alternative practitioners can be profiteering:
if they sell vitamins, herbs, remedies directly to their patients. This can be a convenient service, but it is also a temptation to push more stuff than is truly needed. And when the rent is due every month and you have to pay your secretary, temptation can turn pretty noisy.

This sort of problem can also occur in regular doctor's offices, but less often because they usually just write the prescription and people get the drugs, elsewhere. Where the mainstream doctors can get out of line is all the "free" stuff that drug companies can push on them: vacations to lovely locations to hear all about the latest drugs right on down to free lunch and free coffee cups. Plus the free samples of drugs and devices can be helpful or they can be dangerous. I had a nice doctor insert a free IUD. Turned out to be a lousy idea. It was the one that caused all sorts of injuries and infections and some women died and others lost their uterus. All I got was a minor hemorrhage when it slipped. I was lucky.

The big conflicts of interest are on a whole different level. When the same researcher gets big bucks from drug companies for running clinical studies and then serves on FDA committees to approve drugs we are talking big bucks and an outrageous situation. And this applies to vaccines.

There is no parallel situation with alternative health that I know of. It just doesn't involve the kind of money that drugs and vaccines can bring in. Nor the same level of regulation.

I think the temptation with alternative medicine is to sell stuff that isn't what it says it is. Herbal remedies, for example, that contain miserably low levels of the active ingredient, or vitamins that are adulterated.

[heathergirl67]

Apples and oranges? On the one hand there's a concern about healthcare practitioners' judgement being blurred by financial gain. On the other hand there's a concern about healthcare practitioners' judgement being blurred by financial gain. The source and amount of that money varies, but the issue is the same.

I don't think it's ever a bad idea to warn a person to investigate how profit could affect someone's opinion, as I did with the OP. I've had plenty of people on this board warn me to look at the funding behind the research. Nobody batted an eye at that because it's "against" big pharma. But when I offer the exact same sound advice it's a big deal because it's someone who agrees with anti-vaxxing? Acknowledging that both sides have to face that challenge is reasonable. Villifying the opposition and canonizing your (collective "your") side is a pretty good way to ensure you don't consider a matter objectively. Which makes me question how tainted the rest of your reasoning may be.

[ammiga]

Part of what makes it apples and oranges is the dollar amount. I agree that you have to look at what people's motives are, regardless of where they stand on this issue. But to compare the gain that doctors see from "big pharma" to the dollar or two that doctors are making on a t-shirt or vitamin sale is comparing apples and oranges. It isn't apples and oranges walking into it- that is looking into that same issue of financial gain from a stated perspective. Once you compare what the financial gain is, that is when it tends to become apples and oranges.

[heathergirl67]

How do you know how much the average doctor makes from their gain vs. how much natural practioners make from their gain? Published reports? Survey? Guessing?

[ammiga]

Well, it's not that hard to figure out. Look into wholesale pricing for t-shirts, vitamins, and whatever. Then compare those prices to what the selling price is, remembering to take into account the volume that a small practitioner is purchasing vs a larger one.

Looking into the merchandise is only looking at a very small percentage of what the doctors are truly making. That is only talking about sales of "things", and not how much they are making off their visits. Most natural practitioners that I have had experience with only want to see children very periodically. My dd's doctor recommends a once a year check-in, and doesn't care if you don't do it. Mainstream pediatricians see babies a minimum of 5 times in their first year, and encourage you to come in for every little problem that comes up. And you are still forgetting to include all of the fabulous incentives that the pharmaceutical companies and government give to pediatricians for keeping their patients up to schedule.

Even if you don't get the exact dollar amounts, I'm not sure how you don't see that the financial incentives are apples and oranges.

[Grace and Granola]

Are people seriously suspecting doctors like, Dr. Tenpenny and others, of crossing over into anti-vax territory because of the prospect of making money on books and t-shirts? Don't trust their ideas because they're just trying to make money? As if they don't truly believe in what they are professing and/or making up stuff just to make a buck? I don't get it.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Marnica- I'm sorry that you're not feeling well. Especially since you're already worried about your son's health, getting sick is really the last thing that you need! When it rains it pours. I hope you feel better soon.

Thank you Heather....it just keeps hanging on whatever it is....

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Grace and Granola

Are people seriously suspecting doctors like, Dr. Tenpenny and others, of crossing over into anti-vax territory because of the prospect of making money on books and t-shirts? Don't trust their ideas because they're just trying to make money? As if they don't truly believe in what they are professing and/or making up stuff just to make a buck? I don't get it.

Of course, why wouldn't they? Dr. Offit spent years trying to create a vaccine that he hoped would save lives of children around the world. He then sold the patent and made money off it. Yet people villify him as someone who wants only to make money at the expense of our children's health. The amount of money is different, but whenever money is involved people tend to question the motivation.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ammiga

Even if you don't get the exact dollar amounts, I'm not sure how you don't see that the financial incentives are apples and oranges.

Many parts of the situation are variables. Amount of money, source of money, patients, location in the country, set up (whether group practice, individual practice, etc), personal financial situation, etc. But the basic question is the same. Does having a vested financial interest cast someone's opinion as suspicious? If your answer is "yes" to one then it must be "yes" to both.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Many parts of the situation are variables. Amount of money, source of money, patients, location in the country, set up (whether group practice, individual practice, etc), personal financial situation, etc. But the basic question is the same. Does having a vested financial interest cast someone's opinion as suspicious? If your answer is "yes" to one then it must be "yes" to both.

Sort of. It may be cause to look into both, but you might find some MAJOR differences that cause one person/organization to have suspect motives while the other does not.

[Romana]

Originally Posted by Grace and Granola

That's like saying lactivists are as suspect as the formula companies because they sell t-shirts. Seriously?!

If you are so passionate about a subject that you are willing to make it your life's work, then you should not be judged for trying to earn a living to support your efforts. Even volunteer organizations have to do something to raise the money to pay for the "overhead" of their cause.

Why is a doctor who sees patients an activist, and also engaged in a ton of commercial activity? I get emails from Dr. Mercola. It's rare to read an article/email from him and NOT get to the bottom and find - goodness - a product that resolves whatever health issue was raised, for sale right there on his website! Just one click away! Yes, I find that kind of constant shilling and profiteering to make a doctor suspect. I'm equal-opportunity suspect - Dr. Offit has way too much profit motive to be capable of being objective about vaccines, and especially so with respect to his vaccine. I hate when he's the pro-vax expert on news shows because he's not the best person to talk to due to his personal financial interests.

There are a number of doctors out there who are really taking advantage of parents, who can't get published in respectable scientific/medical journals, who promise the stars and the moon and take money for really questionable or schlocky treatments. They usually have really exciting websites, lots of stuff for sale, and a lot of high rhetoric to offer. I find these kinds of physicians to be engaging in practices that make me question their motives and objectivity.

Doctors doing this sort of thing on either side of the fence are, in my opinion, suspect. I'm not going to give the same kind of credence to their opinions or self-published materials as I do others who have less pressure or motive to come to a particular conclusion. And I think it's an absolute travesty that vaccine safety trials are paid for by vaccine manufacturers.

Doctors who make a lot of money shilling products (including ideas) on the side are not necessarily in it due to passion or personal conviction. It just isn't that simple most of the time. And it may be that they still believe in what they do, but it doesn't mean they can be wholly objective when their livelihood depends on selling stuff based in a particular ideology or unproven medical theory. In fact, it gives them a strong motivation to resist when they may be incorrect or mistaken, and to dismiss newer and better research if it conflicts with what's working for them financially.

I think it's incredibly naive to think that doctors with highly commercial websites are just really good people who only want the best for us. They have their own motivations as well, and profit is absolutely involved. Dr. Tenpenny, for example, could provide the vast majority of the information she sells for free on her website, if it really was her life's work, in an easily downloadable .pdf format. She could do what a lot of family practice physicians do and live a very regular sort of life, while offering as much info as she can on her website for free, and taking things like speaking engagements at cost.

I'm not saying Dr. Mercola, Dr. Tenpenny or anyone else shouldn't be able to try and profit from hard work. Sure, no problem with that! But at the same time, if your lifestyle is dependent upon selling a product/idea and/or you reap a financial profit from your efforts, sure, depending on the specific circumstances, it calls your objectivity into question.

I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of most people. I don't take everything at face value - I carefully evaluate the available information and a person's credibility or objectivity may well be called into question if there are situations that create conflicting loyalties.

Lactivists are volunteers who have no profit motive, and any organizational structure is usually set up as a non-profit, with all proceeds going to a milk bank or something like that. If some lactivist was really hawking a lot of baby products, breastfeeding-related products, t-shirts, and a bunch of other merchandise, and sending out weekly emails to a large mailing list with a big "sell" for a product all the time, and then you could purchase the product with just a couple clicks on her website once you read the sales pitch, and the lactivist didn't donate all of her profits to a charity - then yes, boy is that lactivist suspect. If she also publishes information about breastfeeding and its benefits, and the benefits of her products or her ideas, and sells those products or ideas, yes, I'm going to wonder if her perspective isn't tainted by her personal profit motive.

I don't know how much money Dr. Mercola makes on all of the products he sells, but I bet it's significant. I certainly don't get the impression from the emails that he's REALLY trying to JUST improve my health. He may think it's a great product or this is going to be really good for me, but at the end of the day I can recognize it for what it is - a sales pitch. Obviously he's a worse offender than Dr. Tenpenny (as far as I've seen), but neither of them has immaculately clean hands, IMO.

[heathergirl67]

Well said, Romana. What I like appreciate about your outlook is that the same skepticism is applied equally, no matter what the doctor's position on the issue is.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Well said, Romana. What I like appreciate about your outlook is that the same skepticism is applied equally, no matter what the doctor's position on the issue is.

Most of the people I have come across on this board apply skepticism equally up front, then they dig deeper and form opinions and trust based on that.

I wasn't so much talking about Dr. Tenpenny and Dr. Mercola (whom I know very little about, I don't subscribe to his newsletter). I was talking about my personal experience with doctors. What I saw when dd went to a normal pediatrician vs. what I see with the doctor we go to now. The push for drugs of all sorts is astoundingly different, and the doctor we currently see keeps a few little natural remedies on hand, but it really sits on me to go to Whole Foods or a natural store to buy what he recommends. There is very little (if any) incentive for him to push one thing over another, other than he really believes it will work.

Of course, our doctor isn't someone that everyone will trust and listen to, he isn't a public enough figure for that. For resources on who to trust when looking online or for published materials, I would expect there to be more things to sift through when determining the reasons for their opinions. It is the nature of those who have taken the "public" route of getting their message across. I just don't think that you can say "well, they are all getting some financial gain, so even though there are massively varying degrees of it, I will put them all on the same playing field". It isn't just about financial gain, it's about many many many things, and it seems like you would like it to be very cut and dry and have all rules and generalizations apply to everyone, regardless of individual circumstances. I don't think life works that way.

[heathergirl67]

Ammiga- I agree that every situation is different and the circumstances for each individual should be considered. I just don't think it's unreasonable to advise the OP to look into financial motives behind the advice she listens to. Whether it's a lot of money or a little bit, it can have an affect.

[Deborah]

just wanted to point out that in my post I criticized doctors who sell stuff to their patients and pointed out the conflict of interest.

But there is a whole different scale when we are talking Gardasil as compared to herbs or vitamins.

Read one of the published books on Vioxx with the story of how the drug was developed and marketed. There are some horrific structural problems there. I can see some natural and alternative people who would really like to pull off what big pharma pulls off, but they just don't have what it takes. Which doesn't mean they aren't hurting people by selling crap--they just lack the clout--they are too small scale to kill a 100,000 plus.

I find the large-scale pharmaceutical stuff really creepy because of the entertwining of government and industry in the same way I found it creepy when the oil companies have private meetings with governmental agencies to design environmental rules.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I find the large-scale pharmaceutical stuff really creepy because of the entertwining of government and industry in the same way I found it creepy when the oil companies have private meetings with governmental agencies to design environmental rules.

I agree completely. I don't like the fact that ANY company or organization can donate to political causes. It seems like just buying a vote. And it seems like it would be hard to remain unbiased. But public finance reform is a whole different issue....

[Deborah]

Not just public finance reform. Revolving door between government agencies and drug company jobs or jobs at lobbying firms. Scientists who receive grants for research and then serve on committees evaluating drugs or vaccines.

If we cannot trust the FDA or CDC, why should we take their advice on the safety or efficacy of vaccines?

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Not just public finance reform. Revolving door between government agencies and drug company jobs or jobs at lobbying firms. Scientists who receive grants for research and then serve on committees evaluating drugs or vaccines.

If we cannot trust the FDA or CDC, why should we take their advice on the safety or efficacy of vaccines?

I'll add that if the CDC and FDA take vaccines as seriously as they claims to, it will make EVERY effort to restore public trust in them. Such efforts would have to include aggressive steps to purge these agencies of conflicts of interest and impose MUCH higher standards of research on drugs and vaccines.

Instead, however, public health officials are trying to slap a big Hello-Kitty band-aid on the problem by simply wielding guilt and fear to get us to vaccinate.