Flu shot info: "60% effective" is marketing spin on useless shot - Page 3

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by stik 

I feel like it behooves me to point out that no one here is obligated to prove themselves fair or unbiased. I think people should be open and honest about their biases. I think that this kind of transparency helps serve the purpose of this forum, which is to help parents who are just starting to research the implications of vaccinating or not vaccinating their children.  

I think that would be relevant if doctors and pharmaceutical companies were held to the same standard.  They are not, however.  There is no transparency in that regard.

[stik]

I agree that would be nice.  Would you like to examine the biases of the authors of the Lancet study?  That might be an enlightening addition to the discussion.

Edited by stik - 1/20/12 at 6:32am

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by stik 

I don't sell shots. 

But you've said on another post that you give adults that you treat in your practice DTP, pneumococcal, and flu shots.  Don't you get paid for those visits?  Doesn't your practice get reimbursed by the insurance companies for those shots? Don't you advise your patients to get those shots in the first place? Don't you receive bonuses from HMOs when participating patients are fully vaccinated?

Isn't that selling shots?

From drsears.com:  "But I recently talked with two physicians in different states that told me the HMO plans that they contract with do chart reviews and patient surveys at the end of each year. If their office scores high enough on these reviews, the HMO plan gives them a several thousand dollar bonus. This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated." 

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

But you've said on another post that you give adults that you treat in your practice DTP, pneumococcal, and flu shots.  Don't you get paid for those visits?  Doesn't your practice get reimbursed by the insurance companies for those shots? Don't you advise your patients to get those shots in the first place? Don't you receive bonuses from HMOs when participating patients are fully vaccinated?

Isn't that selling shots?

From drsears.com:  "But I recently talked with two physicians in different states that told me the HMO plans that they contract with do chart reviews and patient surveys at the end of each year. If their office scores high enough on these reviews, the HMO plan gives them a several thousand dollar bonus. This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated." 

I think stik is a teacher????

I think wildkingdom is a doctor.

[Taximom5]

Oops, my bad!  I apologize to both!

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by stik 

Well, the writer said a lot of stuff, but he missed the point.  He's just a journalist trying to sell supplements.  He tries his best.  

You know who else is a journalist? Brian Deer.

Brian Deer, the dishonest man who wrongfully ruined Dr.Wakefield's good name. Don't worry, he is working to restore it.  Why don't you listen to Wakefield's side of the story? Give it a chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFyJdWsAdp8

[stik]

I am a teacher.  

[Imakcerka]

  Probably one of the best conversations I've read in a long time.  Thanks ladies.  

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by stik 

I agree that would be nice.  Would you like to examine the biases of the authors of the Lancet study?  That might be an enlightening addition to the discussion.

Ooh, ooh, I have something to add to this!!

Please listen to the video, starting at 4:28, ending at 6:05. (Best part starts at 4:44) You really HAVE to watch this!!!!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAy1M50PgW4&feature=watch_response

You want to talk about major conflicts of interest?!? Whew, I can't handle the conflicts! Too many!

[stik]

Why do I have to watch that?  It has nothing to do with the flu shot, and a TV interview between a host who wants ratings and a doctor who lost his license for fraud falls far short of the standard of evidence I consider compelling.  

[BeckyBird]

You brought up the Lancet, and I thought you were talking about the Wakefield study.

So, did you even watch the video? If you did, what did you think of Wakefield's claims?  Most mainstream media outlets will not even let him speak, so the alternative media picks up the slack. It is worth your time, if you choose to demonize him, to at least hear his side. It's only fair to hear both sides of the story, not to simply rely on the media to tell you what you should believe.

Again, I brought up Wakefield in response to your comment about the Lancet. I'm sorry if you were talking about someone else. There are other studies in the Lancet, but I just assumed you meant Wakefield's.

[purslaine]

I watched it, Beckybird.  I liked it!

Wakefield talks about the conflict of interest in several pro-vax camps.  I suppose he might be wrong - but I doubt it.  It would be pretty easy to verify.

I don't think it matter who deliverred the message (i.e. Wakefiled.)  The message is important, not the messenger.  Once again, verify the info if you have concerns - preferably with several sources.

Edited by purslaine - 1/21/12 at 5:40pm

[stik]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

You brought up the Lancet, and I thought you were talking about the Wakefield study.

So, did you even watch the video? If you did, what did you think of Wakefield's claims?  Most mainstream media outlets will not even let him speak, so the alternative media picks up the slack. It is worth your time, if you choose to demonize him, to at least hear his side. It's only fair to hear both sides of the story, not to simply rely on the media to tell you what you should believe.

Again, I brought up Wakefield in response to your comment about the Lancet. I'm sorry if you were talking about someone else. There are other studies in the Lancet, but I just assumed you meant Wakefield's.

I was talking about the Lancet study cited in the OP for this thread.  

I have read plenty about Wakefield, including his own attempts to defend his actions in the alternative press.  I have heard his side.  I reached my conclusions about him years ago.  They don't match yours.  I'm done with him.  So no, I did not watch this particular video.  
 

[BeckyBird]

Thank you Kathy!

Wakefield's study has been discredited by fraudulent individuals. All over the world, we have heard that the "autism-vaccine connection has been debunked, because Wakefield's study was a fraud." It's important to know that yes, there was fraud surrounding Wakefield, but the fraud involved the people who attempted to discredit him.

 I will start a new thread about this soon (sorry for the hijack!)

[stik]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Thank you Kathy!

Wakefield's study has been discredited by fraudulent individuals. All over the world, we have heard that the "autism-vaccine connection has been debunked, because Wakefield's study was a fraud." It's important to know that yes, there was fraud surrounding Wakefield, but the fraud involved the people who attempted to discredit him.

 I will start a new thread about this soon (sorry for the hijack!)

You wish this was true

But post brings a dearth of facts

I post sad haiku

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by stik 

You wish this was true

But post brings a dearth of facts

I post sad haiku

pro or anti vax

is Wakefield right or amiss?

questions to ask

(vaccine poetry!!!! - very cool OT)

[Imakcerka]

Oh geez... you ladies are getting silly.  Poetry now?  I wanted to respond but I don't do poetry.

[BeckyBird]

It did make me smile though!

[mamakah]

Non (soon to be selective) vaxer here.

I've got to say, I'm really tired of the articles from places like Mercola's website, Natural News, etc. that are posted by non vaxers as evidence.  Honestly, we don't need these, there are actual studies that are valid that we could be discussing here.  I NEVER read ANYTHING from Mercola or Natural News because imo, they are soooo deep in their conspiracy theories that they get a little extreme. They also constantly misrepresent, misread, or misconstrue studies.

Can we come to a collective decision to only post things that don't have a strong bias? Otherwise we have no discussions, the upper hand is immediately given to the "pro-vaxers" and rightfully so! No wonder they think we are all misinformed!  I got most of my vaccine information from the CDC's pinkbook when making my vax decisions.  I for one am tired of being misrepresented on this board. There are many non vaxers that don't trust these websites.

Just like we shouldn't have blind faith in what the mainstream media, FDA, CDC, etc tell us, we shouldn't have blind faith in those we think are on "our side" either. 

I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe someone already said this. I just needed to say my piece. Carry on.

[purslaine]

mamakah.....

I have mixed feelings on your post.  I almost gave it a thumbs up (still might).

I do not cite controversial sources. First of all, I never personally use them - I am a raw data kind of gal.  I use the CDC for the most part.  I think the numbers are on the low side, due to under-reporting, but they are still a baseline and often make my point.

The other reason I do not use information from non mainstream sites is it always, always, sends the discussion off topic.  Someone always comes on and says  "this is not a valid source".  We end up discussing sources more than ideas or information.  And round and round it goes.

I also think citing controversial sources simply gives fodder to the pro-vax side.  They will harp on about the craziness of the site in an effort to make non-vaxxers look crazy by association.  I question the ethics of this ploy - not only does it make a poster into a scapegoat for posting a questionable site, but I don't think it helpful to parents who are actively making vax decisions.  I suppose intent matters - if the pro-vaxxers intent is to get someone to vaccinate by any means possible, then maybe all is fair in MDC and discussion.  If your goal is to help parents make an informed decision, then deliberately going on and on about the most crazy thing you can find in an effort to discredit non-vaxxing as a whole is not acceptable.  I find it particularly inappropriate when it is done to a newbie.  If I bring up Mercola - have at it - I have been here forever, and know the consequences of posting a non-mainstream site.  To jump on a newbie who doesn't know the history of posting non-mainstream sites....

I do see the other side, though.  Not all non-vaxxers are the same.  Many do come from a holistic POV where citing Mercola is appropriate.  Moreover, why should they not be able to post a site they find useful when pro-vaxxers can post their site?  Why are mainstream sites the default?

The whole issue is complicated....

Edited by purslaine - 1/24/12 at 11:07am