Why are most doctors pro-vax? - Page 12

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by knowerofnada

At a recent health care conference I attended, we were casually told by our lecturer, a PhD of psychology, that Big Pharma literally owned the medical schools....

That is incorrect.

National Public Radio did a piece on a survey it connected to examine the connection between med schools and pharmaceutical companies. The following is from a summary of that piece:

...The informal survey was done by searching financial information on the Internet and through phone interviews. It found that between 2 percent and 16 percent of medical schools' yearly budgets come from the drug industry. The survey included budgets for fiscal 2003 and 2004....Though our survey could not establish the full scope of industry funding at medical schools, it's important to note that some institutions get very little money from industry. Washington University Medical Center, for example, ranks second in federal health funding. But it gets just 1.9 percent of its budget from drug makers and other health-industry sources....

...

According to the American Medical Student Association, med schools rely on a variety of sources for funding. Here's AMSA's stats for all med schools for the 2001-2002 academic year:

Revenue Source
Practice Plans: 36.0%
Hospitals/Medical School Programs: 12.5%
Federal Appropriations: 0.3%
State and Local Government Appropriations: 7.1%
Parent University Support: 0.6%
Tuition and Fees: 3.3%
Endowment: 2.1%
Gifts: 2.4%
Miscellaneous Sources: 4.1%
Total Grants and Contracts: 31.7%

...

One huge source of funding for med school professors and research is the National Institute of Health. Here's some of its funding numbers by school for 2004:

Med school and NIH award amounts
Johns Hopkins: $449,470,782
U of Penn: $393,623,671
UCSF: $379,851,608
Washington U (in St. Louis): $371,719,472
U of Washington: $307,873,069
Duke: $304,740,667
Yale: $287,811,325
UCLA: $285,852,720

Even Mercer, ranked 123d in terms of NIH funding, received $1,244,964 in 2004.

...

Here's a breakdown of funding for one particular school, the University of Minnesota Medical School, which has had financial problems in the past:

- 35.5% from affiliated physicians' practices
- 35.5% from what it calls "non-sponsored sources" and lists these as the state of MN (8.4%), tuition (4.6%), indirect cost recovery (3.4%), hospitals (8.5%), gifts (4%), and "all other" (4.6%)
-29% from sponsored research (this includes research funded by the state of MN, which has provided more than $30 million in research dollars; a partnership with Fairview Health Services, a private, non-pharmaceutical company; and a partnership with the Mayo Clinic for research in genetics and biotechnology). In 2004, the U of MN Med School received $135,622,274 from the NIH for research, ranking it 31st among med schools for such awards.

...

Originally Posted by knowerofnada

I have also been told that they write most of the textbooks.

This is also incorrect.

Let's look at some of the major medical textbooks:

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine - this is a classic in use across the country in medical practices, residencies, and med schools.
- Published by McGraw-Hill, a public company with no involvement in pharmaceuticals
- On Amazon, the list price is $145 and the offered price is $108.23.
- For the 16th edition, 6 authors were listed. These were Dennis L. Kasper, a professor at Harvard Medical School; Eugene Braunwald, another Harvard Med prof; Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; Stephen Hauser, a professor at UC-San Francisco Medical Center; Dan Longo, a scientific director at the National Institute of Aging; and J. Larry Jameson, a professor at the Northwestern med school.

...

Rudolph's Fundamentals of Pediatrics: a book commonly used in med schools
- Also published by McGraw-Hill
- $72.95 from the publisher
- For the most recent edition, the authors were Abraham M. Rudolph, professor emeritus at UCSF; Robert K. Kamei, another UCSF professor; and Kim J. Overby, a medical care coordinator at Elwyn, a non-profit organization that serves people with disabilities.

...

The The Washington Manual of Medical Therapeutics: a book often used in residencies
- published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Amazon cites a list price of $44.95 (it's cheap for a med book because it is spiral-bound) and offers it for $40.01
- For the most recent edition, the authors were the Washington School of Medicine's Department of Medicine and several of its professors.

[EdnaMarie]

Giggleball:

[Edited for anonymity.]

And yes, that does give me a different perspective. Vaccines are a global, not national, health promotion mechanism. So when I look at why any doctor on the planet might vaccinate, I look at the global picture. I know that there are some theories here about drug companies controlling the entire medical profession, but my perspective allows me to see beyond one economy, through to a more general vaccination-supporting environment, that goes beyond capitalist drug purveyors.

I do know that the United States' medical system is broken, but it is also not pro-company. It's pro-lawyer, anti-competition, anti-profit, anti-person, and anti-doctor (believe it or not, they also feel quite hard done by). But this does not govern all of my opinions about vaccinations and their justification.

nok, the link didn't work.

[wallacesmum]

Originally Posted by izobelle

Giggleball: It's pro-lawyer, anti-competition, anti-profit, anti-person, and anti-doctor (believe it or not, they also feel quite hard done by).

Add pro-regulator and pro-status quo!

[EVC]

Originally Posted by izobelle

Giggleball:



And yes, that does give me a different perspective. Vaccines are a global, not national, health promotion mechanism. So when I look at why any doctor on the planet might vaccinate, I look at the global picture. I know that there are some theories here about drug companies controlling the entire medical profession, but my perspective allows me to see beyond one economy, through to a more general vaccination-supporting environment, that goes beyond capitalist drug purveyors.

OK, but I still don't think the conclusion is to answer "because vax is effective." Yes, I believe globally (both in the US and abroad) that there are doctors who sincerely believe in the effectiveness of vaccines. "Big Pharma" doesn't have to pay them a cent--they truly believe. I can accept that line of reasoning. I have no doubts in its verity.

However, belief can be based on blind faith, ignorance, willingness to be misled, desire for a simple answer, generalizing on dubious grounds, misunderstanding causalities, and many other things which have nothing to do with facts.

For example, if I get a cold, a well intentioned doctor acting on sincere a desire to help me, might write me a prescription for antibiotics. I take them as instructed and in a few days my cold goes away. Wow! thinks the doctor, those antibiotics sure are effective--I'm going to give them to all of my patients now. And indeed, all of his patients take antibiotics and their colds also go away in a few days. Great! Except, in reality, the antibiotics had nothing to do with it....But a sincere belief has been born.

OK, so in the Soviet era there was less (if any) financial gain from vax'ing patients, yet the Soviet Union had a huge vax program--larger than the US, I believe. Yes, doctors likely sincerely believed that what they were doing was effective. However, if you study the epidimiological stats, it is quite clear that it wasn't really very effectiveness after all. If the diseases seem to decline (which they do naturally go in waves), then it's because the vax'es are working. When they come back, we just need to vax more. The diseases decline, yay vax'es! The diseases come back, more vax'es! However, what was really happening was the natural waves of the disease and at MANY points the decline in disease did not AT ALL correlate with increased vax coverage.

Not all doctors are so easily fooled, however, and using the former USSR as an example, I daresay that there are more ANTI-vax healthcare workers in Russia than there are in the US. Those who have really studied the numbers have seen the folly of it.

But some doctors are more content to cling to their beliefs--life really is easier that way. Goodness, I have had more than my share of experience with the Soviet healthcare system--including working with the public health field via development work, being treated for pre-cancerous cervical lesions, giving birth, various dental work, bronchitis, being caught in the midst of the diptheria "epidemic" of the early '90s, etc. Actually, that last one is a case in point. When diptheria broke out in my apartment building, the health officials came by to swab me (they swabbed everyone in the building). In my own naivite at the time, I protested, "but I've been vax'ed!" They laughed in my face They worked directly in managing and tracking the outbreak--they KNEW vax status had nothing to do with it. Oh, I remember a mumps outbreak around the same time which caused several scools to close....So much for that vax as well. And I've posted the pertussis info.

So what I'm saying is, yes, I do accept that there are doctors who are pro-vax due to a sincere belief that vax'es are effective (and not because they have been bought out bt big pharma). However, I do NOT accept that as evidence that they work. I see that as evidence that life is less scary when you have something to believe in.

[EdnaMarie]

EVC: Indeed, but I am not arguing that vaccines must be working because everyone uses them, and everyone uses them, therefore, they must be working. That would be a circular argument.

I simply want to dispel the notion that the only, or primary, reason that doctors are pro-vaccination is that they are beholden to drug companies. I simply do not think this is true, and use the Soviet system as just one example among many.

On a totally separate argument, I suggest that they may be pro-vaccination because vaccination actually works. However I do not present their use of vaccination as evidence of its working. I refer to the larger body of literature on pubmed, etc. etc. etc. as evidence.

It's good that you brought that up, because with all of these posts, I think it the message was getting blurry in there. I'm glad I got the chance to clarify before we started going round in circles.

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by EVC

So what I'm saying is, yes, I do accept that there are doctors who are pro-vax due to a sincere belief that vax'es are effective (and not because they have been bought out bt big pharma). However, I do NOT accept that as evidence that they work. I see that as evidence that life is less scary when you have something to believe in.

I TOTALLY agree with your post EVC. Just one addition ~ my only difference is that I believe having a sincere belief that something works/doesn't work is easily influenced by big pharma. I believe that the propoganda put out there by big pharma plays a role in the sincere beliefs adopted by so many doctors...and perhaps the term 'bought out' does not apply but rather brainwashed does instead! To the tune that they only listen to the info pumped out by those who have something to lose if vaccines are found to not be as effect and safe as promoted to be, and not to those who have nothing to lose!

One additional thought (not directly related to your quote) is that I would imagine it a hard thing to do to come out against vaccinations if all of your studies are in western medicine. Western Medicine in all aspects heavily relies upon pharmaceuticals -- they go hand in hand. My belief is that doctors are taught (this is from an outsider with friends as doctors and having been going to doctors trained in western medicine) that if something ails you that pharmaceuticals are usually the answer in some form or fashion. Certainly this form of practice does have it's place in our world but is not the end all be all to being and/or staying healthy!

[EVC]

I TOTALLY agree with your post EVC. Just one addition ~ my only difference is that I believe having a sincere belief that something works/doesn't work is easily influenced by big pharma. I believe that the propoganda put out there by big pharma plays a role in the sincere beliefs adopted by so many doctors...and perhaps the term 'bought out' does not apply but rather brainwashed does instead!

Definitely true for the US, imo. It is, I suppose, a kind of proselytizing. But I can also take Izobelle's point that they may not explain other countries. I imagine instead of the Church of Big Pharma, it is some government ministry writing the sermon books

[EdnaMarie]

"I imagine instead of the Church of Big Pharma, it is some government ministry writing the sermon books "

With the salient difference that Big Pharma gets money out of it (although, not as much as they might if we all got the measles), whereas communist governments lose money.

So you have to wonder what the motivation is.

[EVC]

With the salient difference that Big Pharma gets money out of it (although, not as much as they might if we all got the measles),whereas communist governments lose money.

So you have to wonder what the motivation is.

Fair enough.

I really don't know much about the history of the implementation of the vax program in the USSR. I'm not sure. One could speculate that it was the government's desire to showcase itself as the biggest, the best, the most technologically advanced, etc. That desire did motivate many decisions--i.e. being able to say "we have 100% literacy, 100% eradication of poverty, 100% free education, 100% universal healthcare, 100% vaccine coverage, we can complete five year plans in four years and send Gagarin into space, etc., etc." That whole workers' paradise/the best country in the whole wide world thing

So prestige? But that is mere speculation. I admit that I could be off base.

[EdnaMarie]

But if the vaccines weren't working, then where is the prestige? If people are getting sicker, how does that help? I appreciate the sentiment, but there were many Western medical "advances" that they never picked up on because said advances simply didn't work. So why vaccines?

[giggleball]

I think this is a cylical arguement, izobelle. The reacations from vax's aren't and haven't been attributed (in most cases) to the vaccinations.... so the medical community has not and does not recognize a reaction. And, IMO, vaccines aren't all that effective.....

[EVC]

But if the vaccines weren't working, then where is the prestige? If people are getting sicker, how does that help? I appreciate the sentiment, but there were many Western medical "advances" that they never picked up on because said advances simply didn't work. So why vaccines?

You raise good questions and I don't pretend to have answers. I'm just "brainstorming" I guess

I think whether the vaccines were working or not would only concern local doctors, not the health ministry, for example. They sit in their office and what is really happening on the ground if of little consequence to them--they want the hard numbers (e.g. % coverage). If the doctors are dealing with disease, then that is their problem. People weren't getting sicker, anyway. There were getting sick and recovering the same as before. But that doesn't matter on the governmental level--just as they were able to extol the good fortunes of the Soviet worker who never knew neither hunger nor poverty, yet had to stand for hours in lines and face deficit of such basic consumer goods as toilet paper. Or when leaders smiled and talked proudly of the soviet "freindship of the peoples" only decades or mere years following brutal deportations.

So why would the government care what is happening locally? They would care only about the numbers that they can promote both at home and abroad and say "see how well we are taking care of our people? Everyone can be vaccinated against disease" just as everyone can live freely in a society where all of their needs are met (well, except the ones that aren't )

Again, this is just some idle specualtion, not meant as a real, fact-based answer

Where is Spy? She might actually know :

[EdnaMarie]

"This is a cylical arguement, izobelle. The reacations from vax's aren't being attributed (in most cases) to the vaccinations...."

I don't really understand which part of this post is addressed to me.

[EdnaMarie]

I would just like to break in here to dispel the notion that everyone had to wait in lines for toilet paper. The lines got long in the eighties, during perestroika, but were not like that (waiting for basic goods) before then. Before then, people didn't have a lot but they didn't wait forever to buy bread, either. Things started to break down when they tried to introduce change to the system, which resulted in shortages.

Okay, and beyond that, I would say... you're right, socialists are not known for their results-based management. However, we are talking about large expenses here for them. Why would they (1) believe the capitalist scientists' research, (2) replicate the same research and (3) accept the results to begin such an expensive program in the first place? If it wasn't working? I mean the status quo is one thing. It's another to start it all up.

And how come I've never seen anyone with the mumps here, if they are just as common and deadly as before? Or the measles? I don't even know what those diseases look like, really. So how ineffective could it possibly have been?

[EVC]

I would just like to break in here to dispel the notion that everyone had to wait in lines for toilet paper. The lines got long in the eighties, during perestroika, but were not like that (waiting for basic goods) before then. Before then, people didn't have a lot but they didn't wait forever to buy bread, either. Things started to break down when they tried to introduce change to the system, which resulted in shortages.

Yes, the true deficits came with the breakdown (and before that, with the war, etc), but aside from that there were little in the way of consumer goods. People did have money, but there wasn't much to buy (at least not in small towns). It certainly wasn't the land of plenty as officially portrayed, though

And how come I've never seen anyone with the mumps here,

As I mentioned, I recall a rather large mumps outbreak when I lived in Russia that caused several schools to close. I guess that was about ten years ago, though. Still, that means that it didn't just completely disappear.

[mamakay]

I'm pretty sure the strain of mumps used in the former Soviet Union is a different strain than the one used in the US. It was attenuated differently, and is more neurovirulent, but probably more effective still.

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by lokidoki

I I believe that the propoganda put out there by big pharma plays a role in the sincere beliefs adopted by so many doctors...and perhaps the term 'bought out' does not apply but rather brainwashed does instead! To the tune that they only listen to the info pumped out by those who have something to lose if vaccines are found to not be as effect and safe as promoted to be, and not to those who have nothing to lose!

I think a much, much bigger influence is the CDC and FDA. They set the rules for nearly everything with regard to vaxes: what needs to be disclosed, procedures for vax testing and approval, VISs, etc. They work together on VAERS. The CDC sets the vax schedules (based on recs from ACIP, a group appointed by the Dep't of Health and Human Services). The CDC also provides provide incidence reports, mortality figures, and morbility figures.

I read everything written by drug companies with skepticism. Some of it is extremely useful, but you have to remember it is written by the folks a vested interest. But with things such as the MMWR, I have much less skepticism. (However, please see my previous rants against the FDA and CDC ).

And if I am unfamiliar with a drug, I will always look at non-pharma sources for information regarding contraindications, adverse effects, drug interactions, etc. Some of this info is on subscription-based services specifically on drugs. Others are from searches of the available literature. Our floor also has a pharmacist on duty at all times, and I readily consult her as she has even more resources and a better familiarity with the info than I. You simply have to do stuff like this in order to avoid disaster, not the least of which is malpractice.

I can't imagine simply reading the drug insert and then thinking I know have all the answers.

[giggleball]

Crissitiana, where are your rants on the CDC and FDA? I'd love to read them! I'm no fan of either -- particularly the FDA.

Just wanted to add that in the case of our previous pediatrician, she told me she did not have time to research vaccines. She is busy "practicing medicine." I think the more likely answer is that she just doesn't feel like she has anything more to learn..... so sad!

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I'm pretty sure the strain of mumps used in the former Soviet Union is a different strain than the one used in the US. It was attenuated differently, and is more neurovirulent, but probably more effective still.

The strain of mumps virus used in Russia is Leningrad-3, the last I looked. This is different than in the US. Mumpsvax, M-M-R II, ProQuad are all used in the US, and they all use the Jeryl-Lyn strain.

According to the WHO, the Jeryl-Lynn and RIT 4385 strains were related to lower rates aseptic meningitis and no cases of virologically proven meningitis. But the WHO states that not enough research has been done on the Leningrad-3 strain to do meaningful safety comparisons.

One study found that the Leningrad-3-based vax was about 92-98% effective, but I'm not certain how reliable this stat is.

[Crisstiana]

Originally Posted by giggleball

Crissitiana, where are your rants on the CDC and FDA? I'd love to read them! I'm no fan of either -- particularly the FDA.

Just wanted to add that in the case of our previous pediatrician, she told me she did not have time to research vaccines. She is busy "practicing medicine." I think the more likely answer is that she just doesn't feel like she has anything more to learn..... so sad!

Um, researching the stuff you are recommending to your patients is "practicing medicine". Given the increase in the number of patients questioning vaxes and vax schedule and the number of patients who simply want better info, I hope this attitude changes.

I'll find the rants and PM you, Giggle. I have to log so I can repeatedly say the words "Zinc oxide" and "Xenon atmosphere" to my 7-month old daughter. She thinks those are the funniest words in the human language.