Should doctors refuse to teat PTs who do not follow instructions?

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Never going to happen because doctors who value anything more than money are few and far between.

 

[TreVader]

Maybe they can take their kids to the holistic doctors that treated Steve Jobs' cancer.

Jesus did he actually go to "holistic" docs?


I chewed out a guy on facebook a couple years ago (when i still used Facebook) for posting insane stuff about how chemo is a scam and cancer can be cured with coffee enemas. It's crazy that people will spout this stuff when it actually kills people.

Everybody laughed at him, then he blocked me :/

 

[PrinceofWands]

Read this and stop practicing medicine without a license on yourself. It's one thing to kill yourself via willful ignorance, another to possibly subject your doctor to prosecution for malpractice because you decided to freelance and just use him as a patsy to write drug prescriptions for you under false pretenses.

http://www.phillymag.com/be-well-philly/2013/04/26/never-ever-self-diagnosis-google/

Ummm, how about no. If you need to go to a doctor to get life advice like 'exercise is good for you' or 'if you have high blood pressure you may want to correct it' then frankly you're not worth saving. It doesn't take a doctor to know those things, or learn how to correct them. The ONLY thing a doctor is for is medicine. That's it. They should have NOTHING to do with the rest of your life.

At no point did anyone say anything about 'false pretenses', so fuck off you worthless wise and beautiful woman and stop projecting. I merely take the responsibility to learn about what's going on in my own life so I can make informed decisions, and I am the ONLY one qualified to make those decisions since it is, in fact, MY life. You'll notice this jibes with the article which you linked:

“I don’t think people should diagnose themselves, but they should use the Internet to become educated,” Mago says.

Further, don't act like doctors are somehow special or better than anyone else. They aren't. While they have knowledge of the subject matter so can anyone else with a little time and effort. It's reasonable to consult them, and value their opinions...but most importantly acknowledge their bias and fallibility and be willing (and able) to be the final arbiter of your own health and well-being.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Don't have children.

18 years too late for that, and the world is better off for it since my daughter has learned from me to take personal responsibility for her life rather than being a mindless sheep like so many on here that need a doctor to tell them that the extra helping of dessert has made them fat, or that smoking carries inherent health risks.

 

[abj13]

Instead of posting images as a response telling me I'm "wrong" can you please tell me why I'm wrong and back it up? Or is this how you generally handle debates?

Its pretty simple, you are saying things in contradiction to statements that the ACIP, AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc, all these educated bodies who are knowledgeable about vaccines and the studies behind them. The burden is ON YOU to tell us why thousands of doctors, medical societies are all wrong about vaccines.

 

[abj13]

Further, don't act like doctors are somehow special or better than anyone else. They aren't. While they have knowledge of the subject matter so can anyone else with a little time and effort. It's reasonable to consult them, and value their opinions...but most importantly acknowledge their bias and fallibility and be willing (and able) to be the final arbiter of your own health and well-being.

This is exactly the sentiment the pediatrician in the OP speaks to. To somehow think people can read off the internet and make clinical decisions like someone who has spent 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, seeing thousands of patients, and in the end they can somehow make a diagnosis of things like histoplasmosis like a MD.

So if a patient comes in with cough, fever, shortness of breath, and is on Remicade, where are you going to "look up" to figure out what physical exam finds to look for, what tests to run, and what treatments to start? That's not going to be found on the internet with a "little time and effort."

 

[Abakus]

Vaccines are given to children without parent consent? Where?

Bloomberg’s attempts? And other similar examples like the law in California? Being forced into vaccination is not giving consent either. But I'll see if I can find some proper links on the internet for you.

What kind of links do you accept?

Show us this "risk" of multiple vaccines in a time period leading to a significant number of adverse outcomes.

I did in a prior post. Please see post "#60". There is also the fact that manufactuers of most vaccines clearly state a time span between dosages and not to mix with other vaccines.

What kind of links will you accept? I think finding big sites like CNN or MSNBC or Fox will be pretty impossible. Is NVIC information acceptable? It will be hard since this is generally not something people believe is a problem, so it is under reported and covered up by AMA.

Otherwise, in children and babies even six weeks of age have an immature immune system. Attacking this with vaccines packed with mercury and the like is a horrible assault that is difficult for their bodies to fight off and or successfully. Also, have you heard of MMR causing Thrombocytopenic Purpura? Or the multiple lawsuits in UK, Cananda and a few states here over the adverse effects of vaccination? Why it took one family 17 years to finish their lawsuit against the causes. I'll try and find those specific links in a moment.

Here are some sites that track adverse effects of vaccinations:

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index
http://www.nvic.org/Report/report.htm
www.vaccinememorial.org (sometimes the site goes down)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/vaccine-decision/side-effects.html

No, it exists to protect vaccine producers from the rare adverse effect. If it didn't exist, vaccines wouldn't be an economically sound investment for the drug producers.

It is also there to deal with potential damages done to people who took vaccines.

Ah so you advocate going back to the "good" old days of:

Don't put words in my mouth. Next time please read my posts thoroughly before you give me an opinion I never displayed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

This is exactly the sentiment the pediatrician in the OP speaks to. To somehow think people can read off the internet and make clinical decisions like someone who has spent 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, seeing thousands of patients, and in the end they can somehow make a diagnosis of things like histoplasmosis like a MD.

So if a patient comes in with cough, fever, shortness of breath, and is on Remicade, where are you going to "look up" to figure out what physical exam finds to look for, what tests to run, and what treatments to start? That's not going to be found on the internet with a "little time and effort."

With advanced or complex issues medical professionals are undoubtedly required. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about basic things like smoking, drinking, obesity, etc. To whit:

How would you react if your doctor told you to either stop drinking, or get out. Maybe to stop eating fatty foods or get out. If you were having sex outside a committed relationship, get out.

All those years of training and education you talk about are not exclusive. Others deal with it, in a less formal manner, but often with much of the same exposure to information. Any mother can tell you about the symptoms and impacts of chicken pox or strep, and with just a tiny bit of study or experience can accurately determine a course of treatment.

Further, the training a doctor receives is general. Not all of it pertains directly to each individual malady or condition. In other words, you can't tell me 'a doctor is a fitness expert because of his 7 years of schooling', because MOST of those 7 years weren't spent specifically in fitness education, but also in numerous general pursuits like anatomy, methods of diagnosis, chemistry, biology, etc. Yes, much of it plays into fitness and general health, but ANYONE can know more than a doctor in any specific element if they simply choose to pursue knowledge or experience in it.

Again, being a doctor does NOT grant brilliance, or define you as special or infallible. It's just a combination professional license and degree...no different than a mechanical engineer with a cdl. Feel free to ask them their opinion about the new hybrids, but only you can decide if it's the right car for you to drive.

 

[Abakus]

Its pretty simple, you are saying things in contradiction to statements that the ACIP, AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc, all these educated bodies who are knowledgeable about vaccines and the studies behind them. The burden is ON YOU to tell us why thousands of doctors, medical societies are all wrong about vaccines.

Oh dear...I have been providing the burden of proof—little by little with each post as I'm trying to keep up with everyone. It was rejected without any consideration it seems as "the burden of proof" falls into community standards, which I have no doubt would easily be disregarded by this very community. But since this is the Social forum—which holds numerous debates as I've seen—this falls into a more "public sphere". So I'm not the only one having to be productive to the discussion at hand, should others wish to participate with my argument of course.

But yes, that completely justifies the spam and pointless image. I am bringing my proof to the table; at least have the decency to answer me back and tell me why my proof is wrong instead of spamming with images or irreverent posts—and that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I want to know how I'm wrong and a "lol que?" or similar is not a sufficient reply to disprove another.

I can find people in this field who disagree with those who say it is perfectly safe, but I doubt it would suffice for people set against the idea of vaccination having risks, but those people exist most certainly.

And there are actual cases disproving it is completely safe. They aren't wrong in the sense you assumed my meaning of. The argument here is that there are risks—big enough risks—that I previously mentioned and or provided examples of, that justifies people rejecting vaccinations. To deny that is completely illogical. Not even the US governmental or state gov websites or officials deny it.

 

[abj13]

Bloomberg’s attempts? And other similar examples like the law in California? Being forced into vaccination is not giving consent either. But I'll see if I can find some proper links on the internet for you.

Like all laws they have their exemptions, for example for CA: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/california.aspx

So no, California is not "forcing" people into vaccination since there are exemptions one can apply for.

What kind of links do you accept?

Scientific literature. The kind that is peer reviewed and meets a level of scientific integrity. Posting claims off the internet is not scientific nor well informed sources of information.

I did in a prior post. Please see post "#60". There is also the fact that manufactuers of most vaccines clearly state a time span between dosages and not to mix with other vaccines.

1) There's a fundamental difference between an observation (what you are claiming) and an association
2) What is the study showing an ASSOCIATION between multiple vaccines?
3) Which ones do they specifically state not to mix?

What kind of links will you accept? I think finding big sites like CNN or MSNBC or Fox will be pretty impossible. Is NVIC information acceptable? It will be hard since this is generally not something people believe is a problem, so it is under reported and covered up by AMA.

Ah yes the AMA "cover-up." Here, search here if you want real science: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Better yet, start reading things like this:

DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.J Pediatr. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7.

and

Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, Hackett CJ, Marcuse EK, Kollman TR, Gellin BG, Landry S.Addressing parents' concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant's immune system? Pediatrics. 2002 Jan;109(1):124-9.

Otherwise, in children and babies even six weeks of age have an immature immune system. Attacking this with vaccines packed with mercury and the like is a horrible assault that is difficult for their bodies to fight off and or successfully. Also, have you heard of MMR causing Thrombocytopenic Purpura? Or the multiple lawsuits in UK, Cananda and a few states here over the adverse effects of vaccination? Why it took one family 17 years to finish their lawsuit against the causes. I'll try and find those specific links in a moment.

Sigh. So many misconceptions.

1) Other than multi-dose vaccines, no vaccines contain Thiomersal
2) There is no study linking Thiomersal with adverse outcomes like Autism
3) Biologically, Thiomersal contains mercury in an biological inert status, multiple studies have demonstrated its safety, especially related to its rapid clearance from the human body
4) Do you even know what ITP is? In one study it occurs in 1:40,000 cases, and is treatable. What's the risk of measles meningitis when infected? 1:1000.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index
http://www.nvic.org/Report/report.htm
www.vaccinememorial.org (sometimes the site goes down)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/vaccine-decision/side-effects.html
It is also there to deal with potential damages done to people who took vaccines.

Nobody is denying there are rare side effects of vaccines. However, the massive benefits of vaccines outweigh the rare side effects in vaccines, like:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2013/03/c6fb5feb7f1ee71b7e725277d30999161.jpg

 

[abj13]

All those years of training and education you talk about are not exclusive. Others deal with it, in a less formal manner, but often with much of the same exposure to information. Any mother can tell you about the symptoms and impacts of chicken pox or strep, and with just a tiny bit of study or experience can accurately determine a course of treatment.

No there's a fundamental difference between a parent with an observation ability of n=1 versus a study demonstrating the symptoms of strep in a thousand kids. This causes observer bias, because parents become fixated on "this one time my child had green boogers coming out of his nose with strep, so since he has green boogers, he must have strep... give me antibiotics now!"

Parents do learn diseases though, not to completely dispel them. Some are very good and very informed. But those are the parents who actually do good research on subjects.

Further, the training a doctor receives is general. Not all of it pertains directly to each individual malady or condition. In other words, you can't tell me 'a doctor is a fitness expert because of his 7 years of schooling', because MOST of those 7 years weren't spent specifically in fitness education, but also in numerous general pursuits like anatomy, methods of diagnosis, chemistry, biology, etc. Yes, much of it plays into fitness and general health, but ANYONE can know more than a doctor in any specific element if they simply choose to pursue knowledge or experience in it.

That's completely false, I don't think you actually understand what goes into medical education. For example, let's take a pediatric cardiologist. Sounds badass right? Here's their training

4 years of medical school (~1 year of basic science, ~1 year of medical science, ~2 years of education in clinics, hospitals, etc)
3 years of a pediatric residency, focusing on treatment of children (working 60-80 hour weeks)
3 years of pediatric cardiology fellowship, focusing solely on pediatric cardiology (working 60-80 hour weeks)

So yes, you can learn more than a pediatric cardiologist, just be sure to find all that time to spend 60-80 hour work weeks for 3 years, on top of 60-80 hr weeks learning general pediatrics for 3 years, on top of that medical education. Don't forget the thousand plus patients they see, the time spent with an echocardiogram, AND most of all, all that time supervised by experienced pediatric cardiologists.

Again, being a doctor does NOT grant brilliance, or define you as special or infallible. It's just a combination professional license and degree...no different than a mechanical engineer with a cdl. Feel free to ask them their opinion about the new hybrids, but only you can decide if it's the right car for you to drive.

I don't necessarily disagree with these statements, but there's only so much you can learn from textbooks. Not every person or patient fits into a textbook, that's the scary side of medicine, and the part one would only learn by practicing it.

 

[abj13]

But yes, that completely justifies the spam and pointless image. I am bringing my proof to the table; at least have the decency to answer me back and tell me why my proof is wrong instead of spamming with images or irreverent posts—and that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I want to know how I'm wrong and a "lol que?" or similar is not a sufficient reply to disprove another.

Its only pointless to you because you want to run and hide from the proven benefits of vaccines. Call it whatever you want, you cannot dispel the fact that vaccines are probably one of the biggest medical advances in the HISTORY of mankind.

I can find people in this field who disagree with those who say it is perfectly safe, but I doubt it would suffice for people set against the idea of vaccination having risks, but those people exist most certainly.

Irrelevant, show me the evidence they would quote, if it exists.

And there are actual cases disproving it is completely safe. They aren't wrong in the sense you assumed my meaning of. The argument here is that there are risks—big enough risks—that I previously mentioned and or provided examples of, that justifies people rejecting vaccinations. To deny that is completely illogical. Not even the US governmental or state gov websites or officials deny it.

Nope, I never said vaccines are 100% safe. What I say is the benefits of vaccines in most people (the people that wouldn't be included would be like people with severe AIDS receiving live vaccines) greatly outweigh the rare risks. That's what the ACIP, AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc all would say.

But nice try on the strawman.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No there's a fundamental difference between a parent with an observation ability of n=1 versus a study demonstrating the symptoms of strep in a thousand kids. This causes observer bias, because parents become fixated on "this one time my child had green boogers coming out of his nose with strep, so since he has green boogers, he must have strep... give me antibiotics now!"

Parents do learn diseases though, not to completely dispel them. Some are very good and very informed. But those are the parents who actually do good research on subjects.

Obviously there are going to be idiots. However, idiots don't (or at least shouldn't) set the baseline from which we all operate. I presumed we were dealing with at least averages rather than lowest denominators.

That's completely false, I don't think you actually understand what goes into medical education. For example, let's take a pediatric cardiologist. Sounds badass right? Here's their training

4 years of medical school (~1 year of basic science, ~1 year of medical science, ~2 years of education in clinics, hospitals, etc)
3 years of a pediatric residency, focusing on treatment of children (working 60-80 hour weeks)
3 years of pediatric cardiology fellowship, focusing solely on pediatric cardiology (working 60-80 hour weeks)

So yes, you can learn more than a pediatric cardiologist, just be sure to find all that time to spend 60-80 hour work weeks for 3 years, on top of 60-80 hr weeks learning general pediatrics for 3 years, on top of that medical education. Don't forget the thousand plus patients they see, the time spent with an echocardiogram, AND most of all, all that time supervised by experienced pediatric cardiologists.

Actually I have a pretty good handle on it as I watched a friend go through it, and amused myself with randomly perusing many equivalent texts. However, you make my point for me.

A person who chooses to pursue only one narrow thing is going to be able to become more informed on it than someone who develops an entire generalist baseline upon which to base to a broad profession. If all I have is a heart murmur I don't need to know everything a cardiologist knows to run a practice...I ONLY need to learn about my kind of heart murmur. Sure a specialist will know more, which is why I may have to consult with one if it's serious. No one with a minor issue like is being described is going to see a specialist though. Shit, almost no one in America can afford a specialist regardless. They're going to see a paper mill GP for basic health issues.

It doesn't take 10 years of 80 hours per week to understand the most likely causes and treatments for chronic hypertension in your own case. While such an education wouldn't make you a viable physician, it more than adequately prepares you to approach your generalist and say "hey, I've noticed my blood pressure is remaining 30 points high despite stable diet and exercise and think I may want a cholesterol panel, or possibly look into other chemical imbalances like elevated cortisol from this stress I find myself under that I can't do much about right now. In the meantime I'm open to considering some pharmacy options, like maybe HCTZ."

Now, I don't need a doctor to tell me that diet and exercise are important in managing blood pressure...I've already got that covered. I also can do nothing about certain lifestyle elements that increase stress and therefore exacerbate the situation. That's my problem, not the doctors, and there's nothing he can do about it unless he wants to take a shift watching my dad or slip me some extra money to get a handle on my financials. So, what I would like him to do is listen to me, perform the appropriate tests (as well as telling me which one's I'm wrong about and offering other suggestions), and if he agrees it's necessary put me on a drug that might help without side effects that I'm not willing to endure.

I don't necessarily disagree with these statements, but there's only so much you can learn from textbooks. Not every person or patient fits into a textbook, that's the scary side of medicine, and the part one would only learn by practicing it.

Again, we're not talking about unique rarities that would make a good episode of House. We're talking about people being slightly overweight, or enjoying a scotch on the weekends, or liking to dip their wicks into alternative wells. We're talking about things so average and common that anyone with an iq over that of a kumquat should have a general handle on the knowledge just by being alive for a couple decades and hearing about it again and again all over.

What's more, we're talking about things that really aren't the concern of a doctor to begin with. Again, doctors are for MEDICINE, not life coaching. They're not your fitness instructor, your counselor, nor your family, friend, or pastor. They're there to advise you on pressing medical issues and offer you access to the goods and services required to help you get well.

 

[Abakus]

Like all laws they have their exemptions, for example for CA: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/california.aspx

So no, California is not "forcing" people into vaccination since there are exemptions one can apply for.

Thank you for the link. I was trying to find exemption forms for the states that have or will have "forced" vaccinations and couldn't find a single site! Gov sites crash on me a lot too, so it made it even more difficult.

When I first read the Exemption page my Firefox didn't load anything beyond "Medical Exemption" and I thought that was the only way for an exemption to be made. Had that been so, it wouldn't be much of an option.

I concede on this bit.

Scientific literature. The kind that is peer reviewed and meets a level of scientific integrity. Posting claims off the internet is not scientific nor well informed sources of information.

I don't post sites that claims anything, at least not those without substantial evidence to back up their claims. I wouldn't ever give out websites like that.

But I do have medical books, and I can try to ask my brothers who are in the medical field for any literature on the subject. Could the explanation of the risks or adverse effects be evidence enough for some form of further discussion here or do you want a direct page from a professional talking about it specifically? If so, that could take me quite a bit of time scrolling through books at the local university library.

1) There's a fundamental difference between an observation (what you are claiming) and an association
2) What is the study showing an ASSOCIATION between multiple vaccines?
3) Which ones do they specifically state not to mix?

1) I understand.
2) That will be tough to find since most studies concern possible links of Autism and flood the studies with it. So far the only thing I can present that aren't studies are deaths in children and babies from the '80s onward.
3) There are many vaccines that do not have ways for me to access labels. This is something I picked up from med books and doctors (when I hounded them with safety questions). However, the H1N1 vaccine here at my local RiteAid states on the flier in the shot room that a patient should tell the physician if they had any previous and different vaccines with in the year, especially within a two week time frame, because they could interfere with each other. The combined vaccines aren't really the ones I'm talking about, but the separate vaccines given all at once.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/providers-role-vacc-admin-storage.htm

Please skip to "Timing and Spacing".

Ah yes the AMA "cover-up." Here, search here if you want real science: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Better yet, start reading things like this:

DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES. Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism.J Pediatr. 2013 Aug;163(2):561-7.

and

Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, Hackett CJ, Marcuse EK, Kollman TR, Gellin BG, Landry S.Addressing parents' concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant's immune system? Pediatrics. 2002 Jan;109(1):124-9.

Now that I think about it, my wording came off a little paranoid but oh well.

I'm not only targeting any possible links to Autism. That's actually one I'm not entirely sure is caused by vaccines myself. The second one I'll read up on. Search engine on the link you gave gives back no results though. Or was this intended for me to find via physical means?

*I've never used that site before so manoeuvring through it is a bit hard for me.

Sigh. So many misconceptions.

1) Other than multi-dose vaccines, no vaccines contain Thiomersal
2) There is no study linking Thiomersal with adverse outcomes like Autism
3) Biologically, Thiomersal contains mercury in an biological inert status, multiple studies have demonstrated its safety, especially related to its rapid clearance from the human body
4) Do you even know what ITP is? In one study it occurs in 1:40,000 cases, and is treatable. What's the risk of measles meningitis when infected? 1:1000.

Nobody is denying there are rare side effects of vaccines. However, the massive benefits of vaccines outweigh the rare side effects in vaccines, like:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/matthewherper/files/2013/03/c6fb5feb7f1ee71b7e725277d30999161.jpg

1 & 2)I was referring to older cases when vaccines did include Thiomersal as a point that vaccines can be dangerous. 3) That I must look into. My doctors constantly tell me mercury is extremely dangerous. Either all my doctors are incompetent, which would explain a lot actually, or it actually doesn't clear from the body rapidly at all. Least not from a baby, but again, I'll look it up. 4) Yes I do; my point isn't only dealing with death or permanent illness, but any and all forms of damages a person may not want to risk getting.

Perhaps I misunderstood Moonbeam's initial post to me, but Brainonska511's reply to my comments on the risks was wrong by and I quote, "It just shows you have NO idea what you're talking about.".

 

[Abakus]

Its only pointless to you because you want to run and hide from the proven benefits of vaccines. Call it whatever you want, you cannot dispel the fact that vaccines are probably one of the biggest medical advances in the HISTORY of mankind.

Where are you even getting this from? Where have I displayed anything like that? Simply because I argued the risks of vaccinations? It is good this kind of thing is funny enough to laugh off. I actually enjoy seeing people twist and skew my stance or put words in my mouth. It says a lot about the other opponent.

And @ the underlined

Never argued or was my point. I think you missed it entirely. :|

Irrelevant, show me the evidence they would quote, if it exists.

Nope, I never said vaccines are 100% safe. What I say is the benefits of vaccines in most people (the people that wouldn't be included would be like people with severe AIDS receiving live vaccines) greatly outweigh the rare risks. That's what the ACIP, AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc all would say.

But nice try on the strawman.

There's those community standards I talked about earlier. You talk about the philosophy of "burden of proof" being on me (and ignored that I was doing just that from the start) and then expect my criteria of evidence and valid information to meet the community's standards—those set against me—of valid information/evidence. Which is going to be difficult enough with members that have already disregarded my attempts at doing just that which was then condoned by another member.

But, forget the above; why did you even bother arguing with me then if you never disagreed there were dangers/risks? The only point I ever argued, in which a few of you (plural pronoun here) jumped on, was the fact that vaccines have risks and people don't want to take them, and shouldn't be forced to have them in order to get health care (and then I was promptly shown it was talking about private practices). Then it turned into many assumptions of my character, all baseless and kind of humorous, and then massive misunderstandings of my stance.

Strawman? I bet you say that a lot. But okay, sure, it was a strawman! Next time you should take more time reading posts before you hurry to posting your assumptions.

 

[abj13]

A person who chooses to pursue only one narrow thing is going to be able to become more informed on it than someone who develops an entire generalist baseline upon which to base to a broad profession. If all I have is a heart murmur I don't need to know everything a cardiologist knows to run a practice...I ONLY need to learn about my kind of heart murmur. Sure a specialist will know more, which is why I may have to consult with one if it's serious. No one with a minor issue like is being described is going to see a specialist though. Shit, almost no one in America can afford a specialist regardless. They're going to see a paper mill GP for basic health issues.

No, that example defines why you want a cardiologist examining a heart murmur. A tiny minority of internists are going to be comfortable managing a new onset murmur in an adult. Part of an internist training is not only learning cardiology, but knowing when to refer out. Most laypeople don't even know what a murmur sounds like, let alone differentiating where and when it occurs. Then you have to localize it, define if its pathological or not. And in the end, proper evaluation requires an echocardiogram. Then you go into the differential diagnosis of a murmur and its causes, what the interventions necessary, and how to monitor a patient.

So when its comes down to the idea, "is my murmur pathological," you're putting into a tremendous time investment, and you can't even diagnose what the murmur is because you can't just get an ultrasound of your heart from your local Walgreens.

And your statement that nobody can afford a specialist doesn't apply to the US, since if you have insurance, and if you have a murmur, there's no issues getting coverage to see a cardiologist.

It doesn't take 10 years of 80 hours per week to understand the most likely causes and treatments for chronic hypertension in your own case. While such an education wouldn't make you a viable physician, it more than adequately prepares you to approach your generalist and say "hey, I've noticed my blood pressure is remaining 30 points high despite stable diet and exercise and think I may want a cholesterol panel, or possibly look into other chemical imbalances like elevated cortisol from this stress I find myself under that I can't do much about right now. In the meantime I'm open to considering some pharmacy options, like maybe HCTZ."

And how does that person know that their stress isn't from the long list of potential causes of hypertension? Your example highlights the danger of this approach. There's a fundamental difference between experts and laypeople, best put into the following phrasing:

Some people know, when they don't know things
Then there are some people who don't know, when they don't know
(who said that???)

That's the problem here. What if you're the one that has Cushing's? A pheo?

Hypertension sounds easily, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Management isn't that simple. Treatment isn't that simple.

Now, I don't need a doctor to tell me that diet and exercise are important in managing blood pressure...I've already got that covered. I also can do nothing about certain lifestyle elements that increase stress and therefore exacerbate the situation. That's my problem, not the doctors, and there's nothing he can do about it unless he wants to take a shift watching my dad or slip me some extra money to get a handle on my financials.

I'd be careful about that... there isn't a clear association between stress causing hypertension. Its an interesting connection that hasn't really been fleshed out in the literature.

What's more, we're talking about things that really aren't the concern of a doctor to begin with. Again, doctors are for MEDICINE, not life coaching. They're not your fitness instructor, your counselor, nor your family, friend, or pastor. They're there to advise you on pressing medical issues and offer you access to the goods and services required to help you get well.

I'd say a doctor's focus is on medicine, but certainly doesn't preclude them from being a life coach.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

18 years too late for that, and the world is better off for it since my daughter has learned from me to take personal responsibility for her life rather than being a mindless sheep like so many on here that need a doctor to tell them that the extra helping of dessert has made them fat, or that smoking carries inherent health risks.

Well I hope if her kids get sick she'll take them to the doctor instead of pretending she has expertise she cannot possibly have.

 

[abj13]

But I do have medical books, and I can try to ask my brothers who are in the medical field for any literature on the subject. Could the explanation of the risks or adverse effects be evidence enough for some form of further discussion here or do you want a direct page from a professional talking about it specifically? If so, that could take me quite a bit of time scrolling through books at the local university library.

So if you haven't done the research on adverse effects of vaccines, why are you parading around with statements like:

"There are dangers of vaccinations. Vaccines were I live, especially in children, have been known to make them seriously ill or brain-dead."

"No, it is being ignorant when you deny the existence of the danger of being vaccinated."

" Nasal spray vaccines are the worst. They have caused the most damage. People have administrated them wrong and caused children to be brain-dead. And since most schools have a mandatory 22 vaccination for children entering or returning to school, the dangers increase."

"Sure vaccines can help prevent illness, but it is also doing damage to your body, especially if it mandatory to have multiple vaccinations within a year or two span. The danger is "small" but it isn't as small as most people make it out to be. "

"It is an abuse against your body's natural system and has shown more than once that it can cause death, illness where none was originally had, worsened state of any illness one might have had or long life crippling damages."

Not only are those statements completely trumpted up, you haven't done the research on it?

I'm looking for the actual evidence behind these statements, when the fact is that it doesn't exists. IF you ever sit down and actually do the research, your false opinions might change.

2) That will be tough to find since most studies concern possible links of Autism and flood the studies with it. So far the only thing I can present that aren't studies are deaths in children and babies from the '80s onward.

Nope, its not that hard. Use Pubmed to search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

The problem is that they do not exist, despite your claims

3) There are many vaccines that do not have ways for me to access labels. This is something I picked up from med books and doctors (when I hounded them with safety questions). However, the H1N1 vaccine here at my local RiteAid states on the flier in the shot room that a patient should tell the physician if they had any previous and different vaccines with in the year, especially within a two week time frame, because they could interfere with each other. The combined vaccines aren't really the ones I'm talking about, but the separate vaccines given all at once.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/providers-role-vacc-admin-storage.htm

Please skip to "Timing and Spacing".

:facepalm:

Did you even read "Timing and Spacing?"

"Studies have shown that vaccines are as effective when administered simultaneously as they are individually and carry no greater risk for adverse side effects."

Whoops, way to contradict yourself and everything you've been saying...

I'm not only targeting any possible links to Autism. That's actually one I'm not entirely sure is caused by vaccines myself. The second one I'll read up on. Search engine on the link you gave gives back no results though. Or was this intended for me to find via physical means?

Search Pubmed for those studies, you can find the abstracts and the articles themselves.

1 & 2)I was referring to older cases when vaccines did include Thiomersal as a point that vaccines can be dangerous.

There has been NO study associating thiomersal with a specific adverse effect, including Autism. So no there are NO "old cases."

3) That I must look into. My doctors constantly tell me mercury is extremely dangerous. Either all my doctors are incompetent, which would explain a lot actually, or it actually doesn't clear from the body rapidly at all. Least not from a baby, but again, I'll look it up. 4) Yes I do; my point isn't only dealing with death or permanent illness, but any and all forms of damages a person may not want to risk getting.

I suggest you do much more reading before making anymore comments about vaccines. If you don't even understand the differences between methylmercury and ethylmercury, you really shouldn't make a single comment about it.

Perhaps I misunderstood Moonbeam's initial post to me, but Brainonska511's reply to my comments on the risks was wrong by and I quote, "It just shows you have NO idea what you're talking about.".

Which is an entirely true statement about what you've said.

Simply because I argued the risks of vaccinations? It is good this kind of thing is funny enough to laugh off. I actually enjoy seeing people twist and skew my stance or put words in my mouth. It says a lot about the other opponent.

Considering how you don't understand many of the subjects about vaccines, you are hardly someone that should be discussing the risks of vaccines. Your posts are nothing but fear-mongering not based on science and evidence.

The fact is you simply want to dismiss all the tremendous benefits of vaccines because of some "impression" of risks of vaccines, except you don't even understand what the risks are.

why did you even bother arguing with me then if you never disagreed there were dangers/risks?

You think the "risks" of vaccines should allow people to make the decision to not to take them, when:
1) You don't know what the actual risks of vaccines are
2) You don't understand the risks of getting the vaccinated disease are (what are the complications of measles)
3) You don't understand how rare the adverse effects of vaccines are
4) You don't grasp the idea that the risks of the preventable disease greatly outweighs the rare risk of an adverse vaccine reaction

Considering your uninformed posts about the risks, its clear your understanding of vaccine risk is not in agreement with the AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc. That's why I post, to point out how utterly flawed your understanding of vaccine risks are, and why nobody should take your posts in consideration when making an opinion from this thread.

Strawman? I bet you say that a lot. But okay, sure, it was a strawman! Next time you should take more time reading posts before you hurry to posting your assumptions.

Hahahhaa, don't get mad at me just because you made up an argument about me, and realized you got called out on it.

 

[Moonbeam]

So why didn't it affect those who served in the region prior to the Gulf War and received the same vaccinations? I know that I received that many when the ship I was stationed on in 1981 when we were in the Persian Gulf. We used to get at least 8 to 10 vaccinations every time we entered the Mediterranean sea as well as Northern or Southern Atlantic regions.

I'll give you 10 to 1 odds he has a liberal brain defect.

 

[TheVrolok]

It doesn't take 10 years of 80 hours per week to understand the most likely causes and treatments for chronic hypertension in your own case. While such an education wouldn't make you a viable physician, it more than adequately prepares you to approach your generalist and say "hey, I've noticed my blood pressure is remaining 30 points high despite stable diet and exercise and think I may want a cholesterol panel, or possibly look into other chemical imbalances like elevated cortisol from this stress I find myself under that I can't do much about right now. In the meantime I'm open to considering some pharmacy options, like maybe HCTZ."

While I love patient education/increased health literacy, there's certainly an element of "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" here. Where you demonstrate some knowledge, but are still fairly far off base.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well I hope if her kids get sick she'll take them to the doctor instead of pretending she has expertise she cannot possibly have.

Why would you wish for someone to waste money? What's more, where would you get such an idea in the first place since I never said anything remotely related to not going to the doctor when suffering a serious illness or condition?

In short, I think you're lacking in some comprehension.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, that example defines why you want a cardiologist examining a heart murmur. A tiny minority of internists are going to be comfortable managing a new onset murmur in an adult. Part of an internist training is not only learning cardiology, but knowing when to refer out. Most laypeople don't even know what a murmur sounds like, let alone differentiating where and when it occurs. Then you have to localize it, define if its pathological or not. And in the end, proper evaluation requires an echocardiogram. Then you go into the differential diagnosis of a murmur and its causes, what the interventions necessary, and how to monitor a patient. So when its comes down to the idea, "is my murmur pathological," you're putting into a tremendous time investment, and you can't even diagnose what the murmur is because you can't just get an ultrasound of your heart from your local Walgreens.

None of which was done with me or any of the other three people I know with murmurs. It's simply not a big deal most of the time, and almost no one cares unless it's serious or causing issues. The doc gave mine a listen, wrote up an order for the echo (as I requested), and reported back that it was nothing to worry about. The end.

And your statement that nobody can afford a specialist doesn't apply to the US, since if you have insurance, and if you have a murmur, there's no issues getting coverage to see a cardiologist.

That's just blatant bullshit. The totality of how wrong you are is the explanation of why we ended up with such a piece of crap law like the ACA. Tens of millions without insurance (nearly 50 million in fact), and even those with have terrible times getting the necessary tests and diagnoses, not to mention going bankrupt trying to pay for it even WITH insurance. You're simply wrong about everything you say here, except for a small percentage of the population.

And how does that person know that their stress isn't from the long list of potential causes of hypertension? Your example highlights the danger of this approach.

In the first place something like 90% of all cases will NEVER identify the cause of hypertension, even with the entire medical industry working on it.

Second, in something like 85-95% of cases the primary cause is most likely thought to be diet, obesity, genetic disposition, or stress. If a person can rule out those four, then it's worth pursuing other avenues with a doctor. otherwise, look to whatever factor you fail in because that's most likely the cause. Even if you see a doctor, they're going to do the same thing. Occam's razer, costs, and efficiency prohibit going on fishing expeditions for rare conditions when something else more likely presents itself.

There's a fundamental difference between experts and laypeople, best put into the following phrasing:

Some people know, when they don't know things
Then there are some people who don't know, when they don't know
(who said that???)

The ONLY difference between an expert and a layperson is one has already done the research, and the other hasn't yet. That's it. Period.

That's the problem here. What if you're the one that has Cushing's? A pheo?

Then you're one of 7000 people (or 35,000, depending on which study you prefer) on the planet, as opposed to the 99.99999% that we're actually talking about in this thread. Looking for it when something else is an option is irresponsible, and no doctor worth a damn is going to look into it without need.

Hypertension sounds easily, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Management isn't that simple. Treatment isn't that simple.

Actually it's cake in many cases. Watch your diet, keep moving, and if necessary take something well tolerated like hctz, or hctz/lisinopril if it's really bad. Problem solved (frequently).

I'd be careful about that... there isn't a clear association between stress causing hypertension. Its an interesting connection that hasn't really been fleshed out in the literature.

True. I have no proof whatsoever, merely logical conjecture. However, I have ruled out the other common issues (other than some possibility of genetic inheritance), so the end result is the same - need a pill for management...maybe for a while, maybe forever.

I'd say a doctor's focus is on medicine, but certainly doesn't preclude them from being a life coach.

Then you're going to see a life coach, who happens to be a doctor also, as opposed to the other way around. Personally I don't mix my service providers...I go to the one who deals with what I'm interested in. So again, the only thing I want to hear from my doctor is diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options...I'll get my 'life coaching' from another source of my choosing (or actually none at all, since I find all such things despicable bullshit).

 

[Brainonska511]

Perhaps I misunderstood Moonbeam's initial post to me, but Brainonska511's reply to my comments on the risks was wrong by and I quote, "It just shows you have NO idea what you're talking about.".

To preface, my posts have little substance on this issue because it has been beaten to death numerous times, and thus you won't find too much substance here. Vaccines are one of the greatest medical advances in the last 200 years. I say you have no idea because you qualify vaccines as having risk, which no one would deny, but you fail to adequately weigh it against the risks, which are far greater, of serious illness with potentially life-altering complications. The risk is relative.

Otherwise, in children and babies even six weeks of age have an immature immune system. Attacking this with vaccines packed with mercury and the like is a horrible assault that is difficult for their bodies to fight off and or successfully. Also, have you heard of MMR causing Thrombocytopenic Purpura? Or the multiple lawsuits in UK, Cananda and a few states here over the adverse effects of vaccination? Why it took one family 17 years to finish their lawsuit against the causes. I'll try and find those specific links in a moment.

Attacking the immune system? Where do you get this from? The body is under constant attack from the environment. A vaccine, or even mutliple ones at the same time, is not dangerous to an infant.

A lawsuit is not scientific evidence of a vaccine actually causing the injury.

Lastly, on the mercury point: Thiomersal has not been shown to produce a toxic form of mercury and it is not in use for the majority of vaccines used in the United States.

You should consider doing some basic reading from some authoritative, and scientifically backed sources:

eg: the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

MISCONCEPTION #4. Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications (which sometimes contain the number of reports received by VAERS, and allow the reader to infer that all of them represent genuine vaccine side-effects). Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary....More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is "extraordinarily low."

The preceding section even explains the flaws of using the VAERS system alone to infer vaccine risk.

And finally, they include some risk analysis

Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccine: Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children.
DISEASE

Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000

Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
​

VACCINES

MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
​

----


Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine

DISEASE

Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20

Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10

Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
​

VACCINES

DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
​

To top it off, they have a great line:

In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable

 

[PrinceofWands]

While I love patient education/increased health literacy, there's certainly an element of "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" here. Where you demonstrate some knowledge, but are still fairly far off base.

Which is where a doctor comes in, and why they hold the keys to the medicine cabinet and expensive machines and labs.

Patient - Hey here's my deal, should we 'x'?
Doctor - Yeah, that's likely, good plan.

or

Doctor - I don't think so in this case because of 'y'. Instead, let's try 'z'.

Patient (either way) - Goodo, thanks for the increased understanding.


My point is for a reasonable person to do their own legwork, and maintain awareness of, and responsibility for, their own health. The idea of a doctor being a 'life coach' or having input into any other aspect of your life besides medicine isn't just laughable to me, it's offensive.

 

[Abakus]

So if you haven't done the research on adverse effects of vaccines, why are you parading around with statements like:

Not only are those statements completely trumpted up, you haven't done the research on it?

I'm looking for the actual evidence behind these statements, when the fact is that it doesn't exists. IF you ever sit down and actually do the research, your false opinions might change.

I never said I haven't done research on it. Whose posts are you even reading? I said finding specifics of what you demand will require time for me to find them at my university, e.i, exact studies so that I may pass them directly to you. I can't clap my hands and make the exact book plop into my lap detailing exactly what you need to know. So that does not, in anyway, suggest I haven't researched this.

nope, its not that hard. Use Pubmed to search: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

The problem is that they do not exist, despite your claims

I thought I was given that site to research what you told me to read, not to look up my claims. Perhaps you should be more clear in your posts instead of trying to be a dick.

I'm trying to have a decent debate with you, you know, and you are making it incredibly difficult with your behavior.

:facepalm:

Did you even read "Timing and Spacing?"

"Studies have shown that vaccines are as effective when administered simultaneously as they are individually and carry no greater risk for adverse side effects."

Whoops, way to contradict yourself and everything you've been saying...

I didn't contradict myself. Again you got ahead of yourself. I wanted you to read;

The combined vaccines aren't really the ones I'm talking about, but the separate vaccines given all at once.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac...in-storage.htm

Please skip to "Timing and Spacing".

Red = what I wanted you to read to clarify my stance even further. And this is the content of the page I was referring to;

The use of a combination vaccine generally is preferred over separate injections of its equivalent component vaccines. Considerations should include provider assessment, patient preference, and the potential for adverse events. Administration of separate vaccines when combinations are available results in more discomfort for the patient.

To help clear up any more confusion over my stance since you seem to keep making them up for me as you go.

I was quite aware of what was said prior or after the section. I assure you I read it entirely. Once again you are trying to give me a stance or an argument I never once made. But you'll ignore this and rant against an imaginary stance for who knows how much longer.

Search Pubmed for those studies, you can find the abstracts and the articles themselves.

Like I said earlier; it isn't giving me anything, but I will try again in EI.

There has been NO study associating thiomersal with a specific adverse effect, including Autism. So no there are NO "old cases."

Alright, I'll believe you (already agreed they aren't linked to Autism though. Don't know what else you want me to say) as the lists I found, from April 2013, hasn't been updated with recent studies yet (though it says it will soon, so I'll check back then).

I suggest you do much more reading before making anymore comments about vaccines. If you don't even understand the differences between methylmercury and ethylmercury, you really shouldn't make a single comment about it.

Do you study this...? :hmm:

Where do you get this from? Really, I need to know how you get any of this "you don't know this!!" from my posts. But okay, sure, whatever floats your boat.

Which is an entirely true statement about what you've said.

How so? He didn't explain why I was wrong and so far all you said is "that I'm wrong/don't know what I'm talking about" without actually explaining why.

You have apparently studied this longer (or else your cracks at my intelligence wouldn't be so potent in just one entire post) than me so it should be easy to explain instead of just saying I'm wrong, right? That way, if I'm wrong like you say I am, I'll "go away" faster.

Considering how you don't understand many of the subjects about vaccines, you are hardly someone that should be discussing the risks of vaccines. Your posts are nothing but fear-mongering not based on science and evidence.

Okay, sure.

The fact is you simply want to dismiss all the tremendous benefits of vaccines because of some "impression" of risks of vaccines, except you don't even understand what the risks are.

I never dismissed anything and I don't know how many other ways to keep telling you this until it is finally understood. I merely argued about the risks of vaccines and how some people do have a right to reject the vaccines.

I'd really appreciate it if you would stop putting words in my mouth and attacking my intelligence when you have absolutely no idea what I research, courses I take, what I read and what I do with my time.

You think the "risks" of vaccines should allow people to make the decision to not to take them, when:
1) You don't know what the actual risks of vaccines are
2) You don't understand the risks of getting the vaccinated disease are (what are the complications of measles)
3) You don't understand how rare the adverse effects of vaccines are
4) You don't grasp the idea that the risks of the preventable disease greatly outweighs the rare risk of an adverse vaccine reaction

I honestly don't see how you got any of that from my posts.

I understand perfectly the risks of the vaccines, I understand the risks of the diseases that vaccines fight, I understand how rare the adverse effects are (as previously stated four times), and I certainly "grasp" the idea that it "greatly outweighs" the rare risk.

I'm going to try and say it again and hopefully you won't twist my words any further:

The risks are still there, even if small, and is enough for people to worry over it and decide not to get the vaccinations because of it. Why? Because they fear the off chance it will happen to them or their child.
And there is the risk to worry about. Whether you agree with them or not.

Considering your uninformed posts about the risks, its clear your understanding of vaccine risk is not in agreement with the AAP, CDC, IDSA, PIDS, WHO, etc. That's why I post, to point out how utterly flawed your understanding of vaccine risks are, and why nobody should take your posts in consideration when making an opinion from this thread.

Sure.

Hahahhaa, don't get mad at me just because you made up an argument about me, and realized you got called out on it.

I'm mad?

And I didn't make an argument "against" you. You initially quoted me to argue against me after I made a comment to Brainonska511.

I'll give you 10 to 1 odds he has a liberal brain defect.

I'm so angry now I think I'll rant on MSNBC.