And we go on....
I have a wearying suspicion that people like myself will never convince the gainsayers; I can always be accused of bias, and, if I'm honest, I'm undoubtedly prone to a form of selection bias. I have preconceived ideas, so am not as open minded as I think.
Some people will never believe anything other than what they believe.
I'm sorry to harp on about Ms Barnett again, but she provides an excellent example. She mentioned in her recent broadcast that she was told, when it was discovered that she had high blood sugar, that she had diabetes. "I didn't have diabetes", she retorted, "I had high blood sugar. My blood sugar is now normal".
I don't have any more info on her high blood sugar, so can only speculate. Some people like labels, some don't. High blood sugar isn't normal. If not diabetes, what was the cause? To say "high blood sugar" isn't enough. Impaired glucose tolerance? Sit any better? And to say that "my blood sugar is now normal" doesn't help either... is that because you lost some weight, started exercising and changed your diet? You say 'high blood sugar', I say 'diet controlled diabetes'.
My point is that people can be very selective about what they believe. Labels perceived as 'bad' are often shunned, or rejected. Labels that excuse or explain, often embraced. My old bugbear irritable bowel syndrome is one of these. I was always taught it is diagnosis of exclusion; that is to say, all other causes of your symptoms have been looked for and discounted. So why not call it "Nothing Wrong With Me Syndrome"; ""I'm A Bit Sensitive To My Peristalsis Syndrome"?
Labels also haunt vaccination. Where the MMR is alleged to have a link to autism, it now turns out that there is no proven link, and that Wakefield, a man who would give Nixon a run for his money in the integrity stakes, fudged his results. He is a liar.
But: people need a cause. We are very bad at accepting that sometimes, shit happens, and we don't know why. Autism, and autistic spectrum disorder is poorly understood, especially in terms of its epidemiology. And, I think, it makes it easier for people to deal with to have an identifiable bogeyman. And when evidence, good solid evidence to the contrary is produced, time and time again, people shake their heads and think cover up.
Anecdotes are not evidence, but in cases of harm, will often carry more weight. So, I can produce reams of paper testifying to the absence of a demonstrable relationship between the two, and it all goes to the wind in the face of one parent saying: "My kid had MMR and caught autism"
Yes, I know the cases number in the hundreds and thousands. There's still no link. Look at Japan.
Were the kids teething at the time? Maybe it was their teeth that done it. It wasn't MMR. I have no financial incentive to say that. The evidence simply doesn't lie.
The reverse doesn't seem to be quite so true. We all (I think) accept that smoking is bad, but very few campaigners trot out people who smoked 100 a day and didn't get cancer as evidence that it's safe.
If some children are going to get autism, usually in the second year of life, and most children get the MMR in the second year of life, there will be a temporal relationship. That does not prove causation.
We sit in a privileged position, able to ask why we should vaccinate. Kids are meant to get diseases; we have forgotten how bad they can be, we have never seen children die in their scores, never sat on wards hand ventilating children with Polio.
I have seen children desperately ill from diseases that vaccination might have prevented; I have shared their terror, watched their pain.
It shouldn't be enough to say 'I didn't vaccinate my lot, and they're all right'. What about the next poor bugger who gets it, and isn't. Will you sit with them, and defend your right not to vaccinate to their grieving parents?
No, of course you won't.
I will.
Showing posts with label Jeni Barnett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeni Barnett. Show all posts
Monday, February 09, 2009
More On Jeni Barnett
Further to my last post about Ms Barnett, one of her prime complaints was about scaremongering; she did not need to be frightened, she said. scare tactics, she said, were unfair, and un-necessary. I concur, heartily. And yet she happily read out a message from a caller alleging that vaccines have cancer causing chemicals in them. No evidence, no sourcing, just that. When questioned about it, she referred to a previous caller who had said the same thing. And... you can find it on the Internet.
Well that's done me. Irrefutable. Cast iron.
You can find pretty much anything on the Internet. (Barring of course Ms Barnett's broadcast, which her lawyers have made difficult to find...)
That really is on a a par with saying "a bloke down the pub told me..."
Shouldn't we expect better?
She does make a valid point, however. Scare tactics often don't work, and may not be apt. But it begs the question: As your doctor, should I conceal the truth from you, so as not to scare you?
She mentioned a couple of examples. She referenced a doctor telling her her daughter, who had had recurrent ear infections, would die if she didn't use an inhaler. Whatever one thinks of the veracity of this tale, and I would at the very least suggest the diagnosis was something over and above an ear infection, don't we, as doctors, have a duty to tell the facts?
If I think someone will die without treatment, surely I must tell them?
The alternative might be a mother grieving over the corpse of a child wailing "no-one told me it was this serious..."
Yes, we are sometimes hamfisted, poor communicators. But don't you deserve the truth, even when it's a bit frightening?
Well that's done me. Irrefutable. Cast iron.
You can find pretty much anything on the Internet. (Barring of course Ms Barnett's broadcast, which her lawyers have made difficult to find...)
That really is on a a par with saying "a bloke down the pub told me..."
Shouldn't we expect better?
She does make a valid point, however. Scare tactics often don't work, and may not be apt. But it begs the question: As your doctor, should I conceal the truth from you, so as not to scare you?
She mentioned a couple of examples. She referenced a doctor telling her her daughter, who had had recurrent ear infections, would die if she didn't use an inhaler. Whatever one thinks of the veracity of this tale, and I would at the very least suggest the diagnosis was something over and above an ear infection, don't we, as doctors, have a duty to tell the facts?
If I think someone will die without treatment, surely I must tell them?
The alternative might be a mother grieving over the corpse of a child wailing "no-one told me it was this serious..."
Yes, we are sometimes hamfisted, poor communicators. But don't you deserve the truth, even when it's a bit frightening?
On Vaccines, Liars and Ranting
What follows may turn to ranting. I apologise. It may also run long, so be 'serialised' as it were.
Jeni Barnett is a radio commentator, or radio personality, or something. She seems, to me, to represent the ill informed middle classes. A recent broadcast on her show has re-ignited the debate on vaccination, and in particular, the MMR.
Dr Crippen, always a worthwhile read, has waxed lyrical on the subject. His posts can be found here and here and here. He links to several,other sites, also worth reading, so I won't replicate his work. Ms Barnett's take can be found here, and here.
As ever, this is a subject fraught with peril. Tempers flare on both sides, and there is considerable risk of simply degenerating into name calling.
It is however a subject that makes me particularly angry. Actually, having listened to excerpts from Ms Barnett's show, I think everything about her may make me apoplectic with rage.
To clarify my position, I am an Orthodox practitioner, Western trained and educated. I have little experience of alternative therapies, but have made some study of what effects they purport to have. I do have strong opinions on this, but I try to be open minded where I can. (Altho LBF may not believe that)
It's worth saying that I am, unreservedly, in favour of vaccinations.
They work. This is simple fact. It is not opinion, it is not anecdote. It is cold, hard fact.
Part of the problem, however, is how one defines "fact".
Some people will always question fact; this is, in general, a good thing. But there seem to be a breed of folks who will continue to refute evidence that is contrary to what they believe.
Ms Barnett suggested that the figures for measles cases might be being spun - that there were figures being withheld. She admitted she did not know what these figures were, "because they are being withheld" For what reason, or by whom, I am not sure. But if you forever believe that the truth is being concealed from you, my words will carry little weight.
If vaccines do not work, where is small pox? When did you last see a child dying of diphtheria?
Are they solely responsible? No; of course not. Hygiene has played a part, increased sanitation, better nutrition all play a part. But if better hygiene were all it took, why do we still get viral infections? Glandular fever hasn't been banished by the teachings of Semmlweis, nor the common cold.
I have seen a few comments suggesting that germs do not cause disease, and that this is why vaccines cannot work. I really don't know how to answer that. I would find it equally hard to convince someone that the Earth is round. Koch must be spinning in his grave.
By "work", do I mean 100% effective, 100% safe? No; that isn't true either, but, on balance, they're safer than having the diseases.
Jeni Barnett is a radio commentator, or radio personality, or something. She seems, to me, to represent the ill informed middle classes. A recent broadcast on her show has re-ignited the debate on vaccination, and in particular, the MMR.
Dr Crippen, always a worthwhile read, has waxed lyrical on the subject. His posts can be found here and here and here. He links to several,other sites, also worth reading, so I won't replicate his work. Ms Barnett's take can be found here, and here.
As ever, this is a subject fraught with peril. Tempers flare on both sides, and there is considerable risk of simply degenerating into name calling.
It is however a subject that makes me particularly angry. Actually, having listened to excerpts from Ms Barnett's show, I think everything about her may make me apoplectic with rage.
To clarify my position, I am an Orthodox practitioner, Western trained and educated. I have little experience of alternative therapies, but have made some study of what effects they purport to have. I do have strong opinions on this, but I try to be open minded where I can. (Altho LBF may not believe that)
It's worth saying that I am, unreservedly, in favour of vaccinations.
They work. This is simple fact. It is not opinion, it is not anecdote. It is cold, hard fact.
Part of the problem, however, is how one defines "fact".
Some people will always question fact; this is, in general, a good thing. But there seem to be a breed of folks who will continue to refute evidence that is contrary to what they believe.
Ms Barnett suggested that the figures for measles cases might be being spun - that there were figures being withheld. She admitted she did not know what these figures were, "because they are being withheld" For what reason, or by whom, I am not sure. But if you forever believe that the truth is being concealed from you, my words will carry little weight.
If vaccines do not work, where is small pox? When did you last see a child dying of diphtheria?
Are they solely responsible? No; of course not. Hygiene has played a part, increased sanitation, better nutrition all play a part. But if better hygiene were all it took, why do we still get viral infections? Glandular fever hasn't been banished by the teachings of Semmlweis, nor the common cold.
I have seen a few comments suggesting that germs do not cause disease, and that this is why vaccines cannot work. I really don't know how to answer that. I would find it equally hard to convince someone that the Earth is round. Koch must be spinning in his grave.
By "work", do I mean 100% effective, 100% safe? No; that isn't true either, but, on balance, they're safer than having the diseases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)