Swine Flu

[segnosaur]

I have heard some advocates of the the flu shot state that they haven't used mercury in vaccines since the seventies. There was one on the Bill Good show last week that said that exact thing. I can't remember his name offhand. But then this week I find out they are still using mercury.

It depends on which vaccine and which country. The vaccine available in Canada contains Thimosal. Other countries may use the thimosal-free versions, or have both types.

People have a natural backoff of mercury because of the big scare of it being in seafood. Adding a little more in your flu shot doesn't help assuage the concern.

The think is, the mercury that you find in seafood is a compound called methylmercury. The component in vaccines is ethylmercury. Methylmercury is handled differently in the body, and concentrations can build up. Ethylmercury does not have the same problems.

On one hand, the anti-vaccination people are accusing governments, drug companies, and everyone else of causing widespread panic unnecessarily.

Yet they are doing pretty much the same thing when they make unproven accusations about things like the dangers of mercury being used in vaccines.

It isn't quite the same thing. The authority of the government and the medical establishment in being proponents of the vaccines outweighs individual decision making. It is only when sufficient information challenges the authority that people will look for themselves and make their own choices. People need to make informed decisions, and unchallenged authoritarian dictates preclude that.

First of all, its not just the government and medical establishment that are adding to the 'panic'. Its also the media.

Secondly, I don't think anyone in government or the medical establishment are suggesting mandatory vaccinations. It will likely always be a personal choice. However, the medical evidence points to the fact that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.

[Pliny]

Dr. Fischer is far from "credible". She is one of these individuals who was pushing the "vaccines cause autism" link, even though the science has demonstrated absolutely no relationship between them.

Even though the science doesn't want to demonstrate any relationship.

I'm sorry but there has to be a 100% positive proof before there is the claim of absolutely no relationship between them.

Once again... Dr. Mercola is a quack. The only way that he is a 'thorn' in the side of the medical establishment is because some people may listen to what he says and make bad medical decisions because of it.

Says the medical establishment.

Look, as long as there is a monopoly on health care there will be questions upon it. Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Acupuncturists and all others marginalized by the established medical professionals should have a voice.

First of all, I know that 'upper respiratory illnesses' include colds, etc. People in the study (including those who got the real vaccine instead of the placebo) will also come down with strains of the flu that weren't included in the vaccine.

The shot did not make a '25% difference'. It likely made a 100% difference against the flu itself, but made no difference against other diseases. However, the fact that there was such a measurable difference in total illnesses/total time off work/etc. means that the flu shot was having beneficial effects.

I agree, according to the study the flu shot was having beneficial effects. I won't agree they ere having beneficial economic effects.

And the cost of actually coming down with the flu may not have included the cost of cab fair to the doctor's office/hospital (possibly for mutiple visits), the cost of cough medicine/aspirine. Plus, because it was a relatively small survey, there were no people that ended in hospital. But, we know that any strain of inflenza can put someone in the ICU for an extended period of time.

Ok.

[segnosaur]

Dr. Fischer is far from "credible". She is one of these individuals who was pushing the "vaccines cause autism" link, even though the science has demonstrated absolutely no relationship between them.

Even though the science doesn't want to demonstrate any relationship.

Science doesn't actually have a 'want'. Its a method of exploring the world around us.

I'm sorry but there has to be a 100% positive proof before there is the claim of absolutely no relationship between them.

There have been around 25 studies that have demonstrated no link between autism and vaccines. For example:

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...47-9051da879bfb

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12415036

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477?ck=nck

(you can find a more complete list at http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf. Keep in mind that while this particular site isn't necessarily 'unbiased', it points to original research appearing in peer-reviewed jounrals)

On the other hand, there have only been 3 studies that have shown any sort of link: One in which most of the authors have retracted their support for the article, the others which have significant problems (small numbers of participants, not reproducable, potential bias in samples, etc.)

Once again... Dr. Mercola is a quack. The only way that he is a 'thorn' in the side of the medical establishment is because some people may listen to what he says and make bad medical decisions because of it.

Says the medical establishment.

The 'medical establishment' is composted of people who actually look at peer-reviewed articles of studies that were, in large part, conducted using double-blind protocols. This is the 'gold standard' for actually telling if something works.

Look, as long as there is a monopoly on health care...

There is no 'monopoly' on health care... there is only stuff that works, and stuff that doesn't work.

If you can't show something works with a proper double-blind study, then there's a pretty good chance that its just the placebo effect you're seeing. If something does work under a proper double-blind study, it will be incorperated into the body of knowledge that medicine includes.

... there will be questions upon it. Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Acupuncturists and all others marginalized by the established medical professionals should have a voice.

Except the problem is, those things don't actually work to cure people.

I agree, according to the study the flu shot was having beneficial effects. I won't agree they ere having beneficial economic effects.

And your reason for doubting economic benefits is what? Because you think researchers were too dumb to include some secondary costs?

By the way, that was only one study that showed economic benefits to the influenza vaccine. I've found many more. I just posted one of them.

[Pliny]

Even though the science doesn't want to demonstrate any relationship.

Science doesn't actually have a 'want'. Its a method of exploring the world around us.

The 'medical establishment' is composted of people who actually look at peer-reviewed articles of studies that were, in large part, conducted using double-blind protocols. This is the 'gold standard' for actually telling if something works.

There is no 'monopoly' on health care... there is only stuff that works, and stuff that doesn't work.

If you can't show something works with a proper double-blind study, then there's a pretty good chance that its just the placebo effect you're seeing. If something does work under a proper double-blind study, it will be incorperated into the body of knowledge that medicine includes.

Except the problem is, those things don't actually work to cure people.

And your reason for doubting economic benefits is what? Because you think researchers were too dumb to include some secondary costs?

No. Economics is not their field of study.

By the way, that was only one study that showed economic benefits to the influenza vaccine. I've found many more. I just posted one of them.

Of course all my sources, even though they are doctors, are not credible and yours are all credible. Very convenient. Was there a double blind test done on that?

Doctors today are too scared to think for themselves because if they did they might fall outside the parameters of industry protection and possibly suffer losses in career and economic opportunity.

There have been many catastrophic medical events occur because of blind acceptance of scientific information from flawed peer reviewed studies and the ignoring of valuable data.

As examples I sight the recent drug Vioxx and it's legal problems. The "gold standard" failed in this case.

The enormous effort of one man who discovered heliobactal pylori as a major cause of ulcers but took ten years to have anyone even consider the possibility. That information could have been lost if he hadn't persisted. The Nature of Things did a show on it and said the bacteria was responsible for some stomach and pancreatic cancers as well but strangely I haven't heard anything more regarding that aspect of this remarkable discovery.

In the seventies the shelves were full of brands of margarine that were made with hydrogenated oils - the preferred medical choice over butter. That proved pretty bad advice. Luckily, I stuck with butter.

Doctors were amazed that the presence of HPV was a factor in most uteran cancers.

You know what though, it doesn't really matter that I point out that some research is flawed or information purposely ignored or is politically or economically inconvenient. You will blindly follow their advice as long as it is approved by the proper scientific authority as most any doctor does because it is part of his career. Only you are the patient.

Yes, science will eventually get it right but if they have other motives, say political or economic they sacrifice their integrity and that has proven to be the case, especially when their research dollars come primarily from government grants.

I don't know if you followed the whole aspartame fiasco but that was a blatant market grab with all kinds of scientific research proving other sweeteners were carcinogenic. Now we see them back on the market and aspartame is not as popular as it was.

Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Acupuncturists and all others marginalized by the established medical professionals should have a voice.

Except the problem is, those things don't actually work to cure people.

Why does our health care pay for this if it is quackery? By the way I saw a doctor about a back problem I had he had no clue what the problem was so I went to a chiropractor and got some acupressure treatments problem gone and it hasn't returned.

I had bouts with rheumatoid arthritis (undiagnosed) swollen wrists and sore knee joints. I handled that by eliminating dairy products in my diet. I mean even the smallest amount such as in a slice of prepared sandwich meat gave me a reaction.I probably would have been on anti-inflammatories and still living with the problem if I hadn't taken it upon myself to do some research.

All anecdotal I know, but all information should be checked out for oneself and not accepted as sooth on the basis of it being scientific peer reviewed literature that says it is so.

By the way, ethylmercury although not bioaccumulable as is methylmercury may not have the same problems as methylmercury but is still comprised of mercury.

In the final analysis you are doing no thinking with the process and allowing authority to dictate the terms of your understanding. Just as the established scientific community rejected Harvey's theory of circulation and Galileo's theory of the Sun as the centre of the universe, and wrongly made decisions and conclusions that, once established, then precluded any inspection of contrary data until the quacks finally gathered enough data to refute their myopic predisposition. It still happens today and whether it is ignorance, opportunism, the idee fixee, status and position, know-best attitudes or some other human frailty is irrelevant - it still happens. The internet provides us with a mountain of information available to just about everyone now and all we have to do is learn how to correctly separate the wheat from the chaff.

[segnosaur]

on studies that show the costs of vaccination are outweighed by the benefits, in terms of decreased doctor visits, less productivity lost, etc.

And your reason for doubting economic benefits is what? Because you think researchers were too dumb to include some secondary costs?

No. Economics is not their field of study.

Which is probably not really relevant, since its not like its a big macro or micro economic issue. All they'd need to do is do some basic addition/subtraction.

Of course all my sources, even though they are doctors, are not credible and yours are all credible. Very convenient. Was there a double blind test done on that?

My 'sources' have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. And yes, there were double-blind tests done.

You may have a very capable family doctor, but that does not necessarily mean that they have any special knowledge that the study's author's have. If you think those doctor sources you are referring are such experts, where are their published articles?

Doctors today are too scared to think for themselves because if they did they might fall outside the parameters of industry protection and possibly suffer losses in career and economic opportunity.

There have been many catastrophic medical events occur because of blind acceptance of scientific information from flawed peer reviewed studies and the ignoring of valuable data.

As examples I sight the recent drug Vioxx and it's legal problems. The "gold standard" failed in this case.

Hey, I admit, there have been numerous examples of drugs that have exhibited problems. I can point to many others besides Vioxx. (Phen-phen, thaldomide, etc.) Last time I heard I thhink there were something like 100 drugs that had significant problems.

However, if you go to drugbank.ca, you will see that there are 1300 drugs listed. That means that the vast vast majority of drugs have had no problems.

In addition, most of those drug recalls are not due to ineffecteness. There were unexpected side effects, but the drugs still had beneficial effects.

Compare that to 'alternative' medical scams, that have no proper double-blind studies showing effectiveness.

The enormous effort of one man who discovered heliobactal pylori as a major cause of ulcers but took ten years to have anyone even consider the possibility. That information could have been lost if he hadn't persisted.

My favorite quote on this subject...

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

- Carl Sagan

Yes, there has been the occasional "Genius" who's work is initially dismissed but is later proven correct. But for every "unsung genius", you will find a bunch of incompetents and scammers who are trying to make a buck. For every person struggling valiently to try to find proof of the true cause of ulcers, there is a "smilin' bob" trying to sell unproven sham medicine.

Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Acupuncturists and all others marginalized by the established medical professionals should have a voice.

Except the problem is, those things don't actually work to cure people.

Why does our health care pay for this if it is quackery?

Because, people many people are idiots and they have a mistaken belief that it works.

By the way I saw a doctor about a back problem I had he had no clue what the problem was so I went to a chiropractor and got some acupressure treatments problem gone and it hasn't returned.

...

All anecdotal I know, but all information should be checked out for oneself and not accepted as sooth on the basis of it being scientific peer reviewed literature that says it is so.

And as I've said many times before: anecdotes are not 'evidence'. There's a chance you might have gotten better anyways. (The body has an amazing ability to heal itself, even without any sort of outside intervention.)

If you want to talk anecdotes, consider this:

A few years ago, there was a religious minister called Peter Popoff. Popoff claimed to have the power of faith healing, and he would go into the audience and 'predict' people's diseases before 'healing' them. It was later found that he was actually being fed information through a radio receiver. Yet many people at the time claimed that they were actually healed by Popoff..

So, do you think these people were being 'healed' by Popoff? The people thought they were being heeled. And if you doubt the power of Popoff, why do do you disagree with their 'anecdotes' but agree with your own?

(for more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff#Randi_controversy. Sorry for the wikipedia reference; I'm just providing it for historical context.)

By the way, ethylmercury although not bioaccumulable as is methylmercury may not have the same problems as methylmercury but is still comprised of mercury.

Yes, but in a form that's never been shown to cause problems in the doses used in vaccines.

We've been using vaccines for decades. Thimosal has been used for decades too. If there is a health issue, why have there never been any reputable studies showing a problem?

In the final analysis you are doing no thinking with the process and allowing authority to dictate the terms of your understanding.

Nope. There is no single 'authority' that I am relying on. Instead, I'm relying on the abilities of hundreds if not thousands of scientists. And I'm relying on the principle of Occam's razor.

[Pliny]

Which is probably not really relevant, since its not like its a big macro or micro economic issue. All they'd need to do is do some basic addition/subtraction.

That's all economics is after all, right? Anyone can add and subtract. Too bad governments can't seem toget it right.

If it isn't such a big issue why do they bother? The point is the economic conclusions are sloppy - are their studies just as sloppy?

My 'sources' have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. And yes, there were double-blind tests done.

You may have a very capable family doctor, but that does not necessarily mean that they have any special knowledge that the study's author's have. If you think those doctor sources you are referring are such experts, where are their published articles?

Are suggesting the medical establishment prove itself wrong? Never happen.

Hey, I admit, there have been numerous examples of drugs that have exhibited problems. I can point to many others besides Vioxx. (Phen-phen, thaldomide, etc.) Last time I heard I thhink there were something like 100 drugs that had significant problems.

However, if you go to drugbank.ca, you will see that there are 1300 drugs listed. That means that the vast vast majority of drugs have had no problems.

In addition, most of those drug recalls are not due to ineffecteness. There were unexpected side effects, but the drugs still had beneficial effects.

Unexpected side effects. In the case of Vioxx the side effects were known and not published. Thalidomide was intended for pregnant women and the side efects were unknown? What happened with the peer reviewed double blind gold standard tests?

Compare that to 'alternative' medical scams, that have no proper double-blind studies showing effectiveness.

Mostly economic scams. Health wise innocuous if anything. OTC drugs are in general just as innocuous and ineffective. If you want real damage, economically and healthwise, you have to get peer reviewed approved drugs.

They are dangerous.

My favorite quote on this subject...

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

- Carl Sagan

Good old Carl,ay! Had billions and billions of quips like that. Of course, that can't be argued.

Yes, there has been the occasional "Genius" who's work is initially dismissed but is later proven correct. But for every "unsung genius", you will find a bunch of incompetents and scammers who are trying to make a buck. For every person struggling valiently to try to find proof of the true cause of ulcers, there is a "smilin' bob" trying to sell unproven sham medicine.

Maybe people should learn something about economics then? You would think they would check a little further into wha they are buying. They generally seem to just let the government tell them what's safe these days and if there isn't anything from the government they suffer the consequences. I guess we have to discern some method of telling who the scammers are.

I guess you have been scammed quite a bit?

Because, people many people are idiots and they have a mistaken belief that it works.

Low opinion of people I see.

And as I've said many times before: anecdotes are not 'evidence'. There's a chance you might have gotten better anyways. (The body has an amazing ability to heal itself, even without any sort of outside intervention.)

Nope. It got progressively worse for fifteen years until I had to do something or quit working.

If you want to talk anecdotes, consider this:

A few years ago, there was a religious minister called Peter Popoff. Popoff claimed to have the power of faith healing, and he would go into the audience and 'predict' people's diseases before 'healing' them. It was later found that he was actually being fed information through a radio receiver. Yet many people at the time claimed that they were actually healed by Popoff..

So, do you think these people were being 'healed' by Popoff? The people thought they were being heeled. And if you doubt the power of Popoff, why do do you disagree with their 'anecdotes' but agree with your own?

That's not your experiential anecdote is it. Or is it? My anecdote is my own experience and it costs nothing for someone having a similar problem to cut dairy out of their diet to see if it helps. You see most good medical advice is free and not approved by the medical establishment. No one will study it because there is no drug to manufacture for it.

Yes, but in a form that's never been shown to cause problems in the doses used in vaccines.

Every, chemical, carcinogen and poison in the environment adds up. My dentist still uses mercury fillings because he syas there isn't enough mercury in them to be a problem. Well, it's just one more addition on the layers.

We've been using vaccines for decades. Thimosal has been used for decades too. If there is a health issue, why have there never been any reputable studies showing a problem?

Every quack has to have something to sell. Of course, you do know that if you have an allergy to eggs you should not get the vaccine. Have you seen a reputable study showing a link to that problem or is it just common sense?

{quote]

Nope. There is no single 'authority' that I am relying on. Instead, I'm relying on the abilities of hundreds if not thousands of scientists. And I'm relying on the principle of Occam's razor.

You rely on the scientific establishment. That is your authority. You would not act without their approval, and you would act on their approval even if your own common sense told you not to.

The showers are over there, and I know you'd like to freshen up!