Woo Shot(s)

[JohnB]

Asthma / Eczema (the same genetic defect) is a genetic disorder (I have it myself), which means the body doesn't produce enough of the protein filaggrin, very basically a lack of this protein means substances can easily enter the skin / lungs and prompts the immune system to attack i.e irritants such as histamine to the skin.

Is this true for most allergic asthma? From a quick search re filaggrin, the athsma you are referring to is only the one associated with eczema, not allergic athsma in general. If you have evidence that filaggrin is the cause of athsma in general, I'd like to see it. (Really)

Again, you need to prove that the two are connected,

Um, no. If there is an effect with say 4 suspect causes, but not enough evidence to prove one over the other three, then the prudent action is to try to avoid all 4 suspects. That is what "minimising the risk" means.

Absolutely, but you need evidence to prove that is indeed the cause, until there is evidence, it doesn't limit the problem to that particular cause over any others.

I never said you should. I didn't mention other things because this particular thread was about vaccinations. Point 6 in the list isn't about vaccinations.

I said nothing of the sort

You said,

The only people that should have a voice in such matters are the experts, not worried Mums.

Fair enough, you didn't actually call them idiots, but you did state that their opinions and views are inconsequential and irrelevent, not much difference in practical terms. Sorry mate, but we've had far too many bodies on the deck in recent years to believe unquestioningly in the abilities of the experts. Funny how the worried mums and relatives were right.

 

What I have a problem with personally is the culture of absolutism. Both sides of the debate tend to polarize into all or nothing. To me, totally conventional or totally alternative are as bad as each other because when the sides polarize, they stop listening.

 

When my tonsillitis acts up, hand me the antibiotics. When my appendix ruptured, get me to the O.R. (BTW, it took the MD three days of tests to work out what my wife figured out in about 20 minutes. I don't hold this against my local quack as apparently I had very unusual symptoms.)

 

However, when my L5 disc went bang and all I was offered was surgery I went to the alternate practitioner and got better. When my wife tore the meniscus in both knees and was reduced to walking sticks (at 27) we went the whole way. GP, Specialists, months of therapy (and pain for her) and got nowhere, zero improvement. Three visits to the alternative practitioner and she put the sticks away. (As an aside, we do in fact have before and after MRIs that show her knees with damage and healed. We offered to let the local MDs use them for a case study but they weren't interested.) Why do we go to him? Because he has succeeded for us where conventional medicine failed.

 

Yes, I know, it's only anecdotal. It's a hell of a lot easier to brush off 100 people or so who suddenly don't need surgery as "anecdotal" than to look at what's going on and maybe learn something new.

 

Not all alternative practitioners are con men feeding on a gullible public, just as not all surgeons are incompetent, murdering bastards like Jayant Patel. (Although I'll grant that the proportion is higher in the alternative field.)

[swansont]

Fair enough, you didn't actually call them idiots, but you did state that their opinions and views are inconsequential and irrelevent, not much difference in practical terms. Sorry mate, but we've had far too many bodies on the deck in recent years to believe unquestioningly in the abilities of the experts. Funny how the worried mums and relatives were right.

 

The "worried mums and relatives" were right about what?

 

Why do we go to him? Because he has succeeded for us where conventional medicine failed.

 

Conventional medicine does not come with a guarantee. Never did, never will. But you did the steps properly, going for conventional treatment first. The big danger is in people going for treatments that don't work (i.e. no better, statistically, than doing nothing) first, when there are treatments that do work better than doing nothing.

[Royston]

Is this true for most allergic asthma? From a quick search re filaggrin, the athsma you are referring to is only the one associated with eczema, not allergic athsma in general. If you have evidence that filaggrin is the cause of athsma in general, I'd like to see it. (Really)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by allergic asthma in general, you don't get different sorts at a genetic level AFAIK, different substances, environmental changes may trigger an attack, but that's down to the individual. It's very hard to pin down what causes an attack in many cases i.e the specific foreign bodies that prompt the immune system to respond, and it can be different from person to person. Remember the gene defect is a recent discovery, and so most of the articles on the web won't include this, so you mean the types allergic, intrinsic, exercise induced, nocturnal, occupational and steroid-resistant asthma. I'll look into it. It could be a lumping of symptons i.e I have no idea why contact dermatisis is classed as excema...maybe a reclassification is in order since discovering the gene defect.

 

Um, no. If there is an effect with say 4 suspect causes, but not enough evidence to prove one over the other three, then the prudent action is to try to avoid all 4 suspects. That is what "minimising the risk" means.

 

Where have you provided four suspect causes that vaccinations increase the likelihood of asthma. Illness itself 'messes' with the immune system, the use of anti-bacterial cleaners, and the rise in hygiene will mess with the immune system, the use of medication and education of asthma, reduces the risk of death through asthma...therefore keeping the faulty gene in the population, so it boils down to evidence.

 

I never said you should. I didn't mention other things because this particular thread was about vaccinations. Point 6 in the list isn't about vaccinations.

 

Ok, but you see from my examples above why evidence is tantamount before pointing the finger at a certain cause.

 

Fair enough, you didn't actually call them idiots, but you did state that their opinions and views are inconsequential and irrelevent, not much difference in practical terms.

 

You're misrepresenting what I said...again, remember this is within context of conclusions meeting the public eye. If a Mum, however intelligent she may be makes her case to a newspaper without the scientific rigour backing her case, then she has no right swaying opinion, until there have been significant medical trials confirming her case...that is where the expert comes in. I'm not saying making assertions are stupid, (everybody uses them on a daily basis) just that they should not sway opinion until they're backed up with evidence.

 

What I have a problem with personally is the culture of absolutism. Both sides of the debate tend to polarize into all or nothing. To me, totally conventional or totally alternative are as bad as each other because when the sides polarize, they stop listening.

 

Ok, I see where you're coming from, and I agree. I see no harm in alternative medicine being submitted to blind trials, and exploring why certain methods appear to work, and it's a shame there is this polarization. It would certainly filter the bunk from the genuine, though obviously some alternative approaches are more daft than others, and probably why most alternative approaches are all lumped into the same category i.e it's equally ludicrous until proven...which obviously isn't the case.

 

We offered to let the local MDs use them for a case study but they weren't interested.) Why do we go to him? Because he has succeeded for us where conventional medicine failed.

 

Yes, I know, it's only anecdotal. It's a hell of a lot easier to brush off 100 people or so who suddenly don't need surgery as "anecdotal" than to look at what's going on and maybe learn something new.

 

Do you mind if I ask what type of treatment you received...and again I agree, (that the local MD's should of considered looking into it...though what reason did they give.) I don't see any harm in testing alternatives, but I personally need evidence that it is indeed that alternative that has provided positive results, and not some other factor that was overlooked.

 

The "worried mums and relatives" were right about what?

 

Yeah, I'd like to know that too.

[YT2095]

A friend of friend has a child who's body cannot remove mercury from his body... he's got severe autism. (not saying this was caused by a vaccine shot). If your body can't remove mercury, than it can build up in the nervous system, so even a little bit can be harmful.

 

tell them to eat Plenty of Coriander!

http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/wwwboard/messages/1434.html

 

it even works in the Lab: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGF-4F4H9SP-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=16aad8b4fb65d685a5423cad9e5ab72c

[swansont]

The Arrogance of Ignorance

 

Similar to what I was saying earlier:

 

"You see, it had always puzzled me that a person with, say, an MBA and a “Google PhD” (or, at least, a “Google MS”) would have the temerity to accuse me of arrogance when I disagreed with them on a matter that is within my “sphere of special competence”. I would have felt utterly foolish arguing with them about accerated depreciation or global marketing based on my “Wikipedia MBA”, so I was dumbfounded that they were so confident at the same time that they were so clearly wrong.

 

Let me get past any false modesty here: I may not be the top in my field, but I know far more about biology, physiology and genetics than the average - or even above average - person. Even if they have an MBA. That isn’t to say that somewhere among the 6.6 billion people on Earth there isn’t somebody with an MBA who knows more about biology than I do. However, I feel confident saying that there aren’t many people with no science background (apart from their MBA) that do."

 

———

 

IOW, you may have valuable information to give to a doctor, but you don't know more about medicine than the doctor does. If you have a doctor that won't listen, that's a bad doctor, not a fault of the science aspect of medicine. And let's be clear: medicine is not synonymous with science. It uses science to a large degree, but not all practices are evidence-based. But contrast that with diagnoses and treatments that are not evidence-based at all.

[JohnB]

IOW, you may have valuable information to give to a doctor, but you don't know more about medicine than the doctor does. If you have a doctor that won't listen, that's a bad doctor, not a fault of the science aspect of medicine. And let's be clear: medicine is not synonymous with science. It uses science to a large degree, but not all practices are evidence-based.

Agreed. So, if a practice is not evidence based, then how is it any different from an "alternative" practice? This is underlying my thoughts in this type of debate, conventional medicine is portrayed as being a science and being thouroughly tested, yada, yada and the alternatives are portrayed as no better than shamans. This portrayal and polarization are not a reflection of the true situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by allergic asthma in general

Sorry I wasn't clear. Where some forms of asthma are associated with eczema, not all are. Some are associated with allergies in general rather than a specific one.

Ok, but you see from my examples above why evidence is tantamount before pointing the finger at a certain cause.

They're not pointing the finger at "a" cause, merely looking at what might be causes and trying to avoid them.

You're misrepresenting what I said...again, remember this is within context of conclusions meeting the public eye.

Sorry, our meanings went past each other. I took it to mean in general, as in patient/ doctor relationships whereas you meant publicly. Misunderstanding.

Do you mind if I ask what type of treatment you received...and again I agree, (that the local MD's should of considered looking into it...though what reason did they give.)

The treatment was manipulation and hot poultices during a session with cold poultices and little black herbal balls between times. It is perhaps an injustice to call this practicioner "alternative" as he spent 3 years in southern China studying Chinese medicine.

 

The balls and poultice ingredients were virtually all from bulk packs that were of Chinese manufacture so I would think that they are somewhat standard in "traditional" Chinese medicine. I should also add that he does not claim to cure any "disease", he works on sporting injuries. Muscles, tendons, joints, that type of thing. I had one session delayed while he drove a patient who had come to him with probable appendicitis to a Dr. Until then I didn't know you could call someone a fool in so many different ways.

 

As to our local MDs, their laughing comment was "Poultices? That's what we put on horses!" and their interest ended. I probably didn't help matters by pointing out that they had managed to get nowhere in months and he fixed the problem in days.

The "worried mums and relatives" were right about what?

Maybe we are having more problems than other places lately, I don't know. Around 4 years ago Dr. Jayant Patel was hired by Qld. Health and started work at Bundaberg Base Hospital. During the following 2 years he is linked to between 80 and 120 deaths at that hospital. Little things really, closing after an appendectomy and suturing the patients bladder to their abdominal wall, leaving dead, gangrenous flesh in after a limb removal, stabbing a patient 6 times in the heart to get a blood sample. The relatives complained to the Hospital and relevent authorities but were ignored as "grieving" or "distraught".

 

The nurses at BBH complained and were ignored as "not qualified to comment on a surgeon". They were reduced to literally hiding patients from the surgeon to keep them alive. The whole thing became known when one nurse went public and took the situation to the media. Qld. Health immediately flew Dr. Patel to the US where we are currently trying to get extradition on at least 7 counts of manslaughter. That number will climb as we are still investigating.

 

All the above would be bad enough, but: Other surgeons at BBH said nothing and made no complaints even when they were rectifying Dr. Patel's "incompetent" surgery. Surgeons at Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane who had to perform emergency surgery on his patients were also silent. Likewise the surgeons at Royal Brisbane Hospital who had to try and fix his mistakes. Some made quiet enquiries and comments, but nobody wanted to rock the boat.

 

In the course of the investigation into the affair it was found that Drs had falsified documents, destroyed documents and lied to police. The first Commission of Inquiry had to be cancelled after legal action by two doctors.

 

I guess the relatives were right, he was incompetent and a bloody menace. Pity they didn't have any qualifications to back up their assertions, isn't it?

 

In the last 12 months we have had at least 4 cases where the "worried mum" was sent home with her child only to have the child die within hours. Oops, the worried mums were right.

 

To cap it off. The AMA recently reinstated (and Qld Health now employs) a pediatrician after her release from goal as a child molester. (But she's very sorry and promises not to do it again.)

 

The above is off the top of my head, without looking for extra cases. And you wonder why I might think that the medical fraternity could be less than honest in their dealings? Jayant Patel might have only been one surgeon, but the culture of "See nothing, Do nothing" amoungst the other surgeons points to much wider and deeper problems.

[swansont]

Agreed. So, if a practice is not evidence based, then how is it any different from an "alternative" practice? This is underlying my thoughts in this type of debate, conventional medicine is portrayed as being a science and being thouroughly tested, yada, yada and the alternatives are portrayed as no better than shamans. This portrayal and polarization are not a reflection of the true situation.

 

Portrayed by whom, though? There seems to be a persistent misconception amongst the general population of medicine and doctors, like any given ailment can be cured and that a given treatment always works with everyone. And that knowing what the risks are somehow means there are no risks — something can be thoroughly tested and still have risks.

 

The above is off the top of my head, without looking for extra cases. And you wonder why I might think that the medical fraternity could be less than honest in their dealings? Jayant Patel might have only been one surgeon, but the culture of "See nothing, Do nothing" amoungst the other surgeons points to much wider and deeper problems.

 

Is that evidence of being less honest, or is it that perhaps the medical profession has the same spectrum of honesty and self-preservation as every other profession does, on average? This is a hasty generalization, and one reason that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "evidence."

[JohnB]

Portrayed by whom, though?

Would you disagree that the terms crank, con man, dangerous and crackpot are often used when describing alternative therapies?

There seems to be a persistent misconception amongst the general population of medicine and doctors, like any given ailment can be cured and that a given treatment always works with everyone. And that knowing what the risks are somehow means there are no risks — something can be thoroughly tested and still have risks.

Very true. I do wonder if this attitude is unconsciously reinforced by the doctors however. MDs are human too and nobody likes to admit ignorance so they may give the impression of being less uncertain than they actually are.

 

I think there are some other factors involved as well. I'll try to be clear but please bear with me just in case.

 

1. The term "Medical Science" is often used. To the layman "science" doesn't mean archaeology where opinion and interpretation of the data can overshadow the data itself, it means physics. 1+2=2. Always. A given set of symptoms will always result in the same prognosis. This is why people can't understand why an MD can't take a blood test, give them a quick examination and know exactly what's wrong. They expect StarTrek style diagnoses and the medical profession can't live up to that unrealistic expectation.

 

2. Western medicine is often viewed as mechanistic. The body is a very complex machine and the MD is the mechanic that repairs it. This simplified picture leads people to compare MDs with mechanics. When your car makes a funny hoise you expect your mechanic to listen to it, do some tests and fix it. If he can't, then he's not much of a mechanic is he? People expect this standard from all types of mechanics regardless of the complexity of the machine and the MDs get unfairly lumped in with others.

 

3. No matter how people may complain about MDs "playing God" that is exactly what's asked of them every single day. I've never heard it put better than a conversation on Babylon 5.

Sinclair: "Who asked you to play God ?"

Franklin: "Every damn patient who comes through that door, that's who! People come to doctors because they want us to be gods. They want us to make it better .. or make it not so. They want to be healed and they come to me when their prayers aren't enough. Well, if I have to take the responsibility, then I claim the authority too."

I've read occasionally that many doctors turn to drugs and if true I don't blame them.

Is that evidence of being less honest, or is it that perhaps the medical profession has the same spectrum of honesty and self-preservation as every other profession does, on average?

The second of course, I've never contended otherwise. However if you accept that as true then you must also accept that the medical profession has a similar proportion of shysters, shonks and incompetents as other professions. As a group they hold positions of authority (psych evaluations of criminals for example) and trust. History shows us that no group that holds authority relinquishes it gracefully but will violently attack anything that threatens that authority regardless of the facts.

 

Look at what happens to any whistleblower. They are always attacked, not because they might be lieing but because they undermine the authority of a particular group. While the logic may be a bit simplistic. 1. This is how humans as a group behave. 2. Doctors are human. Therefore that is how I expect Doctors as a group to behave. (Initially at least. With their training I would hope that they would come around in the end.)

 

Am I surprised the medicos acted as they did in the Bundaberg affair? No, not at all. However considering the supposedly high ethical standards of the medical profession I am disappointed. Problems are not solved by hiding them and the concept that "Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done" does not apply only to law.