Jun 13 2011
The impact of antivaccination lobbying
Here’s an excellent news report from Australia on the human costs of the anti-vaccine movement:
The video features Viera Scheibner, who has nothing good to say about vaccines and thinks that vaccines are dangerous and infectious diseases in childhood are good. It also features the stories of children who caught vaccine-preventable diseases. This is how it’s done.
181 Responses to “The impact of antivaccination lobbying”
I was under the impression thiomersal was no longer being used as a preservative in vaccines for children; is that just for US vaccines? I didn’t see 60 minutes rush to contradict the mother’s claims of mercury, beyond the usual fish sandwich line. I was also disappointed not to see Scheibner’s qualifications explained until later on in the video. A person who’d just watched the first half would see a dead child, a woman referred to as doctor and a mother prattling on about the horrors of vaccination. Time constraints, I suppose, but it could have been put together a little better.
On the other hand, Scheibner and her little sidekick were thoroughly humiliated by the show towards the end. Impressive work.
Viera Scheibner is a farce.
You can read more about this clueless paleogeologist (one who studies teeny tiny fossils) here:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/scheibner.htm
I write this with a heavy heart, but this is a great video. Thanks for sharing.
Holy crap. Her qualifications are fossils and a nursing course? What a bitch.
I think the only way I will feel any relief is if someone makes a revenge-style action movie about it. You know the ones like Collateral Damage where some guy’s family is killed by a drug dealer or terrorist, and he goes nuts and kills all of the bastards behind the operation? We need some buff Hollywood actor who loses his baby to an antiquated disease to go on a covert trip to the home of one of those quack masterminds, blasting hench-hippies in organic cotton berets with a machine gun as they fall over second-floor balcony railings. Then at the end the villain and our fully-immunized hero are facing off on the roof, and the hero charges the quack and both go flying off of the roof in a bear hug and land in a pool which is infected with horrible bacteria because stupid naturopathic idiots are afraid of chlorinated pools. Then the picture goes black, and slowly fades in to one of those epilogue relief scenes in the hospital, except instead of just showing the hero recovering, it shows the moronic villain slowly dying from diphtheria.
@ConspicuousCarl,
That’s, um, imaginative, I suppose? I fear it might not change matters much, though. Stories like the ones in this documentary might change some minds. What might change some more minds would be an unvaccinated celeb getting sick or even dying with a vaccine-preventable disease… not that I’d wish that on even the worst of Hollywood’s denizens.
Increasingly, I’m suspecting that we may have to resign ourselves to never quite persuading all the antivaxxers. Which will mean that intermittent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases will continue to occur, as the unvaccinated and unexposed population builds up over time.
Since (in the U.S.) everyone who gets vaccinated pays a small amount in the vaccine injury fund, I think the best way to deal with this is for everyone who chooses NOT to get vaccinated (chooses — for non-medical reasons) to have to pay into a non-vaccine injury fund. That is, the non-vaccinators-by-choice should have to bear the full costs of all outbreaks that implicate non-vaccinated individuals, including wrongful death settlements. They can then get a happy little card, like my cat gets for its rabies shots, that show they complied with the law in one way or another.
At first these costs won’t be *too* high, with a comparatively large number of non-vaxxers and mostly hospitalizations, but as more children die, it’ll get very expensive, very fast, and a lot of non-vaxxers will decide they don’t actually think vaccines cause autism to the tune of $20,000 per non-vaccinated child. (Which, even so, is a better economic bet than having the parents of the deceased child who caught measles from your kid suing you directly.)
If we can work out the Amish and Social Security, I’m confident we can work out any attendant religious exercise issues.
Non-vaxxers shouldn’t be allowed to externalize their costs.
That’s a screaming iatrogenic death magnified 20X. When you are surrounded by a score of incompetent doctors they will really spoil the broth and turn you in acidotic state.
Paddy:
It isn’t supposed to change anyone’s mind, it’s just supposed to make me feel better so I don’t strangle my computer monitor.
I don’t know if an actual celebrity death would change anything. I am pretty sure we have already lost some of them to nonsense (though I can’t think of any names at the moment), and the nonsense is still here.
I don’t often put people on my ignore list.
@Th1Th2,
That’s libel, plain and simple.
Ignore Th1Th2. She is not sane.
Absolutely heart-breaking.
I know very little about how the immune system works. I do know it’s incredibly complex. These antivax people prattle about “there’s no proof vaccines work” and “Hep B vaccine suppresses the immune system and makes you vulnerable to whooping cough” and “diseases are the only way to get natural immunity” –
Well let me just say, I know enough to recognize complete bullsh-t when I hear it.
These people are so unwilling to educate themselves, it’s just mind-boggling. And speaking as someone who has lost a child (not to a vaccine-preventable disease), I find the antivaxxers heinous and detestable for their role in causing the deaths of numerous infants worldwide.
I wish upon Viera Scheibner a severe case of shingles with every possible complication. A pox upon thee, lady!
Her friend with a background in IT even made a website for her . . . please please PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, tell me her “background in IT” consists of running the cash registers at Best Buy or something like that. That is one massively hideous and amateurish website they show.
Loved how they showed Scheibner brutally taking down her friend in order to forestall the awkward questioning. The woman’s arrogance is shocking.
The look on the father’s face at the beginning as he watches the video of his son is heartbreaking.
The lengths the McAffrey’s are having to go to in order to protect their new daughter is shocking. 1 in 5 in the dad’s school has tested positive for whooping cough? That’s shocking. I hope I misunderstood the comment; that’s a massive outbreak. How many more babies are going to die before people like Scheibner are shown the door by the community at large for satisfying their own egos, their own need to be the brave mavericks bucking the establishment, at the expense of so many children?
Of course she says it’s the parents’ fault their children are dead. She cannot, will not accept her own part in it. She cannot bear to be proven wrong, so she dismisses the accusation, but it strikes very close to home so she terminates the interview. At some level, she must be aware of the massive stakes at play here, enough so that when evidence starts to show she may be wrong, she recoils. Most of the time, I think she tries to avoid thinking about the stakes. I mean, she thinks getting the diseases is the correct way to get immunity and avoid being killed by the diseases, which is of course ludicrous — get the disease to avoid getting the disease. If getting the disease were so trivial, why would immunity even matter? Obviously at some point she’s realized it does matter, and these can be very dangerous diseases. But it’s an uncomfortable thing to think about, so she doesn’t. It’s much more pleasant and emotionally satisfying to dwell instead on the villainous corporate executives and the doctors they pay to remain silent as they rake in the dough, even if that image is largely fictional. Not entirely fictional, and that is why it sticks so well — corporate executives are all about profit. They have to be; it’s their job. And faked science does happen. Wakefield isn’t an isolated case. It’s enough truth inside the lies to make the lies seem plausible.
What a piece of work she is.
I’d love to know how, if the only reason babies die of these diseases now is because they got HepB vaccines at birth, why they died in such huge numbers before we had any vaccines at all?
Proof positive that stupidity can be fatal.
I think at this point the only thing that will curtail the anti-vax movement in the US is for a child to die from vaccine preventable disease due to being too young to be vaccinated, and the parents of the child file suit and win against the anti-vaccine warriors that have spoken out the loudest against vaccines.
After all, the anti-vaccine movement isn’t about truth, it’s about them being right and wanting the ‘establishment’ to admit that it’s intentionally hurting their children.
I wonder if wrongful death could be upheld in a court for a newborn too young to vaccinate dying because the anti-vaxers have convinced enough people to not vaccinate that herd immunity has been compromised to protect the most vulnerable among us?
On another note, how many of the anti-vaccine activists are fully vaccinated themselves? If they are, that takes any danger off them and puts it on the people/children they are forcing non-vaccination on. When they live through an epidemic, but their children die, what will they say then?
Hello,
Does anyone know if it would be legal to upload this video on my own channel on Youtube with an added subtitling?
Thanks
Nory,
I suspect you’d need to get permission from 60 Minutes and approval for the subtitle. Ask YouTube since they state everything uploaded to their server belongs to them.
IANAL, but as I understand it such a suit would be highly unlikely to succeed. It’s quite difficult to prevail against the specific individual whose decision not to vaccinate caused the victim to become infected. Drawing a strong enough link to any particular antivax campaigner to establish liability seems pretty near impossible.
I especially liked how they called them “self-appointed experts” in the intro, except while they are self-appointed, they are hardly experts on vaccination. More like avid purveyors of misinformation.
Scheibner is part of the Vaccination Information Service in Australia, which produced a documentary on vaccines and vaccine safety called “Vaccination: The Hidden Truth”. It is chock full of so much misinformation my head was spinning trying to digest it all. A couple years ago I considered making a series of videos and/or blog articles and such countering that video as well, but I was having some difficulty with the research trying to locate their original sources since their citations (the few they provide) are so poor. One citation, for example, says simply “Lancet 1978″. That’s it… and it’s a citation on one graph, though I forget what at the moment.
Scheibner is quoted in that documentary as saying “Vaccines are killing babies”, in mentioning a link between vaccines and SIDS. One thing I found rather striking: the documentary was produced in 1998, if I recall correctly, and only a couple years later, Australia experienced a major outbreak of pertussis. I think they have produced additional documentaries as well.
Vaccination Information Service has two website domains:
- http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/
- http://www.vaccinationandvaccineinfo.org/
Kenneth:
If you look at the link I provided in the first comment, you will see that at least a decade ago she was explaining away shaken baby syndrome as “vaccine damage.” I have recently seen some of her writings brought to try to exonerate people who shake babies to death.
She is vile, despicable and a true farce.
Oh, wait… it was the first comment when I made it, now it is second. The first one must have been held up in moderation (I think the moderation software uses a random number generator to put some comments in moderation, as I see no reason for that one go end up there!).
I have been pondering on how to best proceed re the lies and self-delusion of the antivaccers. My conclusion is that best route is via forums used by new parents. Anxious new parents who want to do what is best for their babies. Many go to parents forums for information and reassurance. There are antivac people pushing their messages and confused thinking in these arenas. While I think there is zero chance of changing their “minds” I do think it is important to put up sensible posts that clearly and succinctly put the opposing view. I am learning to resist the red herrings (but so tempting at times to swim after them) and keep coming back to the salient points.
[...] 60 minutes i Australien om mässlingsvaccinet. SKRIV KOMMENTAR Klicka här för att avbryta svar. [...]
According to Dr. Teresa Forcades, a practicing Spanish doctor, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (A Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Various Age Groups (21/10/2009), authors: FC Zhy, H Wang, HH Fang et al. demonstrates that the marketed H1N1 vaccine has no effect, i.e. creates no immune response, because the antigen level is too low, below the necessary level of 15mcg, to create antibodies in the host. At 7.5mcg it appears no response occurs and the formulations distributed among the populations bear only 3.75mcg of the antigen, well below necessary.
In the study the adjuvant alum rendered the vaccine less effective. From the text:
“Vaccine without adjuvant was associated with fewer local reactions and greater immune responses than was vaccine with adjuvant” (pg 1).
“Vaccine formulations without adjuvant were more immunogenic than formulations with adjuvant” (pg 7).
However no tests were done using the adjuvant squalene.
I am including a 2 part video of her lecture in Barcelona but unfortunately it is in Spanish and I was unable to access it with English subtitles.
http://vimeo.com/7951734
http://vimeo.com/7996944
libby,
It took me a while to track down the NEJM article. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0908535#t=article It would have been easier if you had gotten your facts straight.
The first author was Zhu, not Zhy.
The publication date was Dec 17, 2009, not 10/29/2009.
The study did not show that the marketed vaccine had no effect. It found that the most effective dose was 15 mcg, and that is exactly what was in the marketed vaccines. You can read the package insert for yourself at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm182404.pdf
The study did not show that the 7.5 mcg dose was ineffective; it showed that it was less effective.
There is an English subtitled video of Forcades talk at
http://www.vimeo.com/7298827 She makes serious mistakes in the video that are corrected in the subtitles.
I speak fluent Spanish and listened to as much of her talk as I had time for. Forcades apparently believes there was a massive conspiracy of Big Pharma and various government agencies to deliberately kill people with flu vaccines.
“Forcades apparently believes there was a massive conspiracy of Big Pharma and various government agencies to deliberately kill people with flu vaccines.”
That is a serious fabrication of the facts. She never said this.
@ libby,
“That is a serious fabrication of the facts. She never said this.”
And your false statements about the NEJM article and the vaccines are not serious fabrications of the facts?
And Forcades’ false statements about the number of flu deaths (that had to be corrected in the subtitles) were not serious fabrications of the facts?
I said “apparently” because I didn’t have time to watch the entire video, and what I heard her say was that people who believe the conspiracy theory wonder what it is all about and she has solid information that backs the accusations. If she said she didn’t believe in the conspiracy later in the video I will retract my words.
The reporter Forcades trusts as the source for some of her facts IS, however, a conspiracy theorist. In a document entitled Bioterrorism Evidence, Bürgermeister points to an international corporate criminal syndicate and extensively details its plan to carry out mass genocide against the American people by unleashing a deadly flu virus and instituting a forced vaccination program.
“There is proof many organizations — World Health Organization, UN as well as vaccine companies such as Baxter and Novartis — are part of a single system under the control of a core criminal group, who give the strategic leadership, and who have also funded the development, manufacturing and release of artificial viruses in order to justify mass vaccinations with a bioweapon substance in order to eliminate the people of the USA, and so gain control of the assets, resources etc of North America.” http://www.infowars.com/journalist-fired-over-flu-pandemic-lawsuit/ There is more, about Bilderburg and the Illuminati.
Forcades is probably just bitter she didn’t make it onto the Pharma Gift List.
I watched the rest of the Forcades video at http://www.vimeo.com/7298827 and part of the combined video. It was a painful experience because she repeats a lot of the accusations of the swine flu vaccine fearmongerers that I wrote about in September 2009. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/swine-flu-vaccine-fearmongering/
and she says things that are demonstrably not true. She uses the same tactics as the 911 truthers: looking for any anything that can be used to create doubts and suspicion and not considering how other investigators have already explained those things. She does not come across as an actual believer in conspiracy theories: she says she “doesn’t know” but she definitely admits the possibility, and even the probability, that some nefarious group is in control behind the scenes.
To clarify the low-dose claim: GlaxoSmithKline did market a vaccine with 3.75 mcg, but it boosted the effect with squalene and did appropriate studies to show that it was effective. Libby’s statement that “no studies were done with squalene” is incorrect. The NEJM study did not test squalene, but other studies did. Vaccines in the US did not contain any adjuvants and contained the recommended 15 mcg of antigen. Squalene has been long used in Europe and has been proven to safely boost the immunogenic effect, allowing production of vaccines with less antigen.
libby,
“Forcades is probably just bitter she didn’t make it onto the Pharma Gift List.”
There is no such list, and such insinuations are not helpful. It would be more helpful to admit that you made false statements and that Forcades distorted the truth.
I don’t believe libby watched the video. Or she does not know the difference between influenza and pertussis.
Really, how could she posted that stuff about H1N1 after seeing those parents in that video? Can she really be that cold hearted?
Harriet Hall:
I would find your misrepresentations amusing if they weren’t so transparently dishonest.
You quote me as saying “no STUDIES were done with squalene” when in fact I said “no TESTS were done with squalene”. Clearly I was talking about the cited study in NEJM and not to the absurd idea that no “studies” had ever been done with squalene.
You had to alter my quote to accommodate your vacuous attack.
The cited study used alum as an adjuvant and not the preferred squalene, and I was pointing this fact out although it weakened my point.
I’m sure your minions will come to the rescue.
Harriet Hall:
I stated, “Forcades is probably just bitter she didn’t make it onto the Pharma Gift List.”
You stated, “There is no such list, and such insinuations are not helpful.”
Au contraire. I have already cited a JAMA study that concluded that pharma gifting affects how a doctor prescribes. They refer to it as “non-rational prescribing”.
You must know that because you were on that thread.
libby,
1. I realize now that you were talking about the lack of squalene tests in the NEJM article, but my substitution of the word “studies” for your word “tests” can hardly be considered a transparently dishonest misrepresentation. At worst, it was a simple misunderstanding. Your own description of the NEJM study is a misrepresentation. I don’t presume to know whether it represents transparent dishonesty or merely faulty understanding on your part.
2. I pointed out several errors of fact in your comments: how was that a “vacuous attack”?
3. I don’t have minions. I don’t need people to defend me. Fact and reason are defense enough.
4. I know that pharmaceutical companies have given gifts to physicians. That doesn’t mean that a “Pharma Gift List” exists. Forcades is a physician who is just as likely to have been offered gifts by Pharma as any other physician. What could you possibly mean about her “not making it onto the list”? And why bring up possible motivations rather than addressing the content of what she said?
Your version of the facts doesn’t withstand scrutiny, and you have not responded to my corrections.
In the first place, none of this is relevant to the 60 Minutes video that is the subject of this post. Instead of responding to that, you took the opportunity to get back up on your previous soapbox about pharmaceutical companies. As if that kind of gratuitous highjacking weren’t bad enough, you failed to support your accusations with any credible evidence.
From all the comments you have posted, I can only conclude that you are not interested in finding out the truth, but only in venting your anger.
Harriet Hall:
1. Wrong. There would be no need to substitute any word of a quote and then put it in quotation marks pretending it was the exact wording. That’s the FUNCTION of quotation marks, to indicate that every word is as it appears in the original, even with the original mistakes. I’ve never seen any scholarly work that varied from this protocol.
Your purposeful substitution allowed you then to misrepresent my reference to squalene. That’s dishonest.
2. The vacuous attack, minus your spin, dealt directly with this misrepresentation, not with you pointing out “several errors of fact in (my) comments”. You really have problems with the simplest concepts.
3. Well I suppose you can’t be held responsible for the comments of others so I’ll give you this point.
4. Possible motivations?? Are you kidding. You even have a JAMA study that indicates that gifting IS a motivation.
How many pharma gifts would come your way if you questioned their conduct of secreting away safety information through the courts, or their fight against transparency i.e. lobbying against the Sunshine in Litigation Act?
From all your distortions of my posts, I can only conclude you have some kind of not-so-hidden agendum that has little to do with a truth quest.
Harriet Hall:
Re your comments on the video (it takes a while to get to this because of all your distortions but now that I’ve dealt with them I can turn to the video),
You state, “The first author was Zhu, not Zhy.”
The is mindless gainsaying and further comment is unnecessary.
You state, “The publication date was Dec 17, 2009, not 10/29/2009.”
My source stated the incorrect date but of course that’s my fault. I at least gave you the reference and it took me all of 10 seconds to find the article on the internet. Hardly a painstaking task for anyone with a working knowledge of computers.
“She uses the same tactics as the 911 truthers: looking for any anything that can be used to create doubts and suspicion and not considering how other investigators have already explained those things.”
A bit unfair here. It is common for any critique to bear the other side of the story, since the original supporting views have already been presented.
“She does not come across as an actual believer in conspiracy theories: she says she “doesn’t know” but she definitely admits the possibility, and even the probability, that some nefarious group is in control behind the scenes.”
Not true at all. There is always a possibility of conspiracies taking place but she was emphatic later in the video that she was not promoting this idea.
“GlaxoSmithKline did market a vaccine with 3.75 mcg, but it boosted the effect with squalene and did appropriate studies to show that it was effective.”
Now why do you do this? You mention studies with no references, something you vilify me for.
In any case I do question the conflict of interest of a company testing its own products.
I have shown that drug companies carry influence with doctors (gifting), health officials (firings), and I will add politicians (protective legislation), all of whom are only indirectly connected to them, so how much influence do these same companies have on their OWN employees, scientists or not, people directly dependent on them for their livelihood?
libby,
This is degenerating into a useless “I said, you said” ad hominem contest. It is time to stop.
You said things that are demonstrably not true: that the 7.5mcg dose was ineffective in the NEJM study and that the marketed vaccines were ineffective. None of this is relevant to the 60 Minutes video that is the subject of this post.
Questions were raised about the H1N1 vaccines in 2009 and were adequately answered. I see no point in revisiting that controversy.
“How many pharma gifts would come your way if you questioned their conduct of secreting away safety information through the courts…”
The same number of pharma gifts that come my way now: exactly zero.
Thanks for the laugh!
For the record, I fully support transparency.
I’m still waiting for my mansion in the Hampton’s and a $million/yr from big pharma to prescribe their meds.
Harriet Hall:
“The same number of pharma gifts that come my way now: exactly zero.”
weing:
“I’m still waiting for my mansion in the Hampton’s and a $million/yr from big pharma to prescribe their meds.”
The cited study in JAMA is preferable to these testimonials. Apparently lavish gifts are not necessary for non-rational prescribing.
Harriet: I don’t think you are aware of the verjuice that eminates from your fingers. Your first paragraph in response to my entry was “….if you had gotten your facts straight”, meaning a typo error and an incorrect date.
This set the tone for this thread.
In any case I will bow out and wish you all a happy July 4th.
So, if I prescribe a few drops of water and tell the patient to see if it works, that would be rational prescribing? If the collaborators on that JAMA paper came out saying that the Canadian government is short-changing its citizens by not having the newest, expensive drugs, they would definitely keep their positions and continue as consultants. Boy, you are naive to believe that they have no biases, or just willing to accept their conclusions because it confirms your own conspiracy theories, just like that of the Spanish shill for conspiracy theorists that you mentioned.
weing:
If the JAMA study has been falsified by other better studies, then feel free to post them.
Re conspiracy theories: I agree with you. A structural analysis would not reveal a conspiracy. That is not how it works.
@libby,
“….if you had gotten your facts straight”, meaning a typo error and an incorrect date.”
But also meaning your false statements about the findings of the NEJM paper and the ineffectiveness of marketed vaccines. Why continue to ignore that part of my comments? Instead of selectively quoting me, why do you not acknowledge your errors?
libby, trying to get back on topic: what is your plan to prevent infant deaths from pertussis?
“If the JAMA study has been falsified by other better studies, then feel free to post them.”
It’s not about falsification. As I recall, it was a meta-analysis. It’s about conflicts of interests of the authors. I trust no one.
weing:
“….it was a meta-analysis. It’s about conflicts of interests of the authors. I trust no one.”
Then why would you trust any study?
Harriet Hall:
“…..why do you not acknowledge your errors?”
Because they are not my errors. I was presenting the contents of a lecture by Forcades for all to view and critique, referencing the NEJM article for comparison.
Just a question. Why are you all not out celebrating the 4th of July?
I take them all with at least a grain of salt. I always look for the biases and conflicts of interests of the authors. We are all biased. So you can say I trust them to be biased. I check the methodology of the studies. The data is generally good, but I reflexively suspect it is incomplete. No study is ever the final word. Medical knowledge is not set in stone, it’s ready to change as more info comes in.
@libby,
“they are not my errors. I was presenting the contents of a lecture by Forcades for all to view and critique,”
Hah! You presented it for us to critique? Why did you present that particular video for critique? The video referenced a NEJM article: did you bother to look at that article? Do you exercise any judgment of your own before you present something? I pointed out what was wrong with it: you could have thanked me and acknowledged that it contained errors.
Now, to get back on track, what do you have to say about the Viera Scheibner video? Do you reject pertussis vaccine because it was manufactured by a company you don’t trust, like you rejected the dilating eye drops?
libby:
Are you telling us that we need to leave our homes to celebrate Independence Day? At the present I have just finished making a corn salad with fresh herbs from my garden to be served with lettuce that I also grew. The ribs have been on the barbecue, and the chicken that has been marinating with herbs from the garden just got put on. My laptop is in the kitchen, which makes it convenient.
So, really, what is your plan on how to prevent infant deaths from pertussis?
@weing
“I take them all with at least a grain of salt. I always look for the biases and conflicts of interests of the authors. We are all biased. So you can say I trust them to be biased. I check the methodology of the studies. The data is generally good, but I reflexively suspect it is incomplete. No study is ever the final word.”
*standing ovation* Damn good insight!
What is it about H1N1 and squalene, and Internet trolls?
I’m having Desiree Jennings flashbacks.
Harriet Hall:
You state: “The study did not show that the 7.5 mcg dose was ineffective; it showed that it was less effective.”
Could you point out where is says this in the NEJM study ?
You state: “She (Forcades) makes serious mistakes in the video that are corrected in the subtitles.”
Could you point out where these subtitled corrections of serious mistakes take place in the video?
You state: “GlaxoSmithKline did market a vaccine with 3.75 mcg, but it boosted the effect with squalene and did appropriate studies to show that it was effective.”
Please reference these studies you speak of.
Concerns: drug companies have already demonstrated a propensity for secreting safety issues, esp on products they have already sunk millions of investors’ dollars into. In 2010 GSK was required to pay $150m in criminal fines and $600m in civil penalties regarding the adulteration of several products at their Cidra plant. Cheryl Eckard, a former quality assurance manager, was fired for reporting these problems to her superiors.
So, libby, what is your plan on how to prevent infant deaths from pertussis? Be sure to show all documentation of it efficacy.
@libby,
“You state: “The study did not show that the 7.5 mcg dose was ineffective; it showed that it was less effective.”
Could you point out where is says this in the NEJM study ?”
Do I have to do your reading for you? Figure 2 and the supplementary appendix show the seroconversion and antibody levels for each dose studied. All are well above zero.
Why are you so fixated on Forcades’ accusations and insinuations?I’m not going to subject myself to the Forcades video again for your benefit. The English subtitled version clearly shows several corrections in the subtitles. There are a number of other errors and fallacious arguments but I don’t see any point in explaining them. I don’t care to waste time re-hashing these old H1N1 vaccine questions. The questions were raised in 2009 and have all been adequately answered. It’s history. Been there, done that. Boring. Those vaccines are no longer in use.
If your point is to show that pharmaceutical companies have made mistakes and covered them up, no one is denying that, but that says nothing about whether a given drug or vaccine is safe and effective. There is no evidence of malfeasance related to the H1N1 vaccine.
I’ll ask once more: what do you have to say about the Viera Scheibner video? Do you reject pertussis vaccine because it was manufactured by a company you don’t trust, like you rejected the dilating eye drops?
Well, even if this statement were factually correct, what does that prove except that you need to up the antigen level within the vaccine? Or more accurately, you face a choice between increasing the antigen level or using an effective adjuvant? Do you understand how science works? Do you know why adjuvants are necessary? They allow more vaccine to be produced with a given amount of antigen. This was particularly important for the H1N1 vaccine since it was difficult to cultivate using the traditional “egg” method. In addition, using an adjuvant allows you to use a smaller amount of the antigen for each dose. Adjuvants work mainly by thickening the vaccine dose so it lingers at the injection site, and by ‘irritating’ the tissues to provoke an inflammatory (and thus immune) response. The overall point of this study was it demonstrated the influenza A H1N1 vaccine was effective at producing a protective antibody response. Slam-dunk for science, and the world rejoices!
You’re also missing the fact that there are very few “magic bullet” studies that prove or disprove a hypothesis. Even if this experiment failed, and was replicated, that’s one wrinkle in the extensive body of knowledge about vaccines that indicates they are safe, effective and associated with significantly reduced morbidity and mortality on individual and population levels – to the point that we have managed to eliminate smallpox as a communicable disease. I’m not even sure what this set of posts was supposed to prove, that one doctor managed to find one study and misunderstand the implications of it, and that you like to pick pointless fights while avoiding genuine discussion? If so, good job because you argue like a criminal defence attorney trying for a technicality. Fortunately science is based on attempting to discover more about the world rather than win arguments irrespective the truth.
I’m Canadian, ye wee little narcissist, and if that’s supposed to be a criticism then I will add to that “hypocrite” based on the date stamp on your comments. There are other countries in the world with internet access. I spent my Canada Day cooking chicken burgers and coleslaw. It was delicious, thanks for asking.
As a final point – prescribing patterns being influenced by gifts from pharmaceutical reps isn’t the same thing as a massive conspiracy to cover up the ineffectiveness of vaccination. It’s good business, bad medicine and not really related to science at all. Anyone who can’t tell the difference is a moron, as is anyone who thinks one can be related to the other.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
Sorry but I don’t have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.
What does narcissism have to do with anything here????
It’s difficult to discuss this stuff when people are cogent but your posts twist around so many red herrings and distortions it’s just not worth the trouble.
By the way it was Health Canada that fired their inspectors for trying to protect the public. Canada is really a lost cause when it comes to drug safety.
At least in the US their are attempts to bring about transparency in legislation, although they did bring in legal protections in 1980 for vaccine manufacturers against lawsuits for any damage they cause. Truly unbelievable.
@ libby
I repeat: “what do you have to say about the Viera Scheibner video? Do you reject pertussis vaccine because it was manufactured by a company you don’t trust, like you rejected the dilating eye drops?”
What does the 4th of July have to do with anything? I’m curious, you’re the one who brought it up, so feel free to justify it.
Yeah, I really hate it when people fill up a comments page with red herrings, like pharma conspiracies and nutjob comments by practicing doctors who apparently don’t understand vaccination.
I assume you’re talking about the vaccine injury court, the one they had to set up because so many people were suing manufacturers that it was becoming unprofitable to produce the very vaccines that eliminated smallpox and almost eliminated polio. The standard of proof required by the vaccine court is quite low, deliberately so. It exists to ensure there is a viable source of vaccines (thus protecting industry from having to constantly defend themselves from scientifically unjustified law suits), while ensuring that this incredibly important public health measure is monitored for safety.
Oh, and as a resident of Canada, we like our drug safety measures just fine. In fact, sometimes I think they over-reach and block the release of medications that have an acceptable safety profile.
HH:
You state: I repeat: “what do you have to say about the Viera Scheibner video? Do you reject pertussis vaccine because it was manufactured by a company you don’t trust, like you rejected the dilating eye drops?”
This is a Fox News style question, attempting to elicit a “yes” or a “no” on a complicated topic.
Normal people don’t commit illegal acts. Corporations are legal persons. Unlike individuals, corporations commonly commit transgressions. We wouldn’t think of asking an individual who commits transgressions of the law to baby-sit our kids, but we are quite compliant in handing over our health to corporations, these legal persons, who commonly commit illegal acts.
So given the system as it stands, I would have to be convinced by the medical system that all precautions have been taken by the company, the government, and the doctors, so that all matters are transparent and that nothing shady is going on. If satisfied, I might then make the decision to get immunized against whooping cough using conventional medicine.
But to me the system is faulty. A health system in my opinion should have no involvement with private enterprise.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
Sorry. I’m just not as compliant as you are.
I hope pharma drugs give you the comfort that you’re looking for.
@libby,
Would you accept a homeopathic vaccine?
When you accepted a homeopathic remedy for your allergies, did you first “have to be convinced by the homeopathic system that all precautions have been taken by the company, the government, and the doctors, so that all matters are transparent and that nothing shady is going on.”?
GLaDOS:
“What is it about H1N1 and squalene, and Internet trolls?”
You must have stumbled onto the wrong thread. There’s been little said about squalene except in passing.
HH:
“I’m not going to subject myself to the Forcades video again for your benefit. The English subtitled version clearly shows several corrections in the subtitles. There are a number of other errors and fallacious arguments but I don’t see any point in explaining them. I don’t care to waste time re-hashing these old H1N1 vaccine questions.”
Nice try, but I’m not buying it. I saw no mis-translations.
@ libby,
“I saw no mis-translations.”
No one said anything about mis-translations. In the subtitled version I linked to, the subtitles include corrections to errors she made in speaking: for instance the number she gave for worldwide deaths from H1N1 was many times too low. I spotted a number of uncorrected errors, for instance she said there was live virus in the injectable vaccine. And there were a number of logical fallacies and misrepresentations. They were all old hat, were answered back in 2009, and there is no reason to re-hash them now. Besides which, as WLU pointed out, even if the video were accurate, it wouldn’t prove anything. It is irrelevant to the question of whether vaccines in current use are safe and effective. It doesn’t even show that the vaccine companies did anything wrong; it only shows unverified claims that they and the government acted inappropriately, claims that were subsequently shown to be unfounded.
So, libby, what is your plan on how to prevent infant deaths from pertussis? Be sure to show all documentation of its efficacy.
“But to me the system is faulty. A health system in my opinion should have no involvement with private enterprise.”
Yes, we see where you are coming from, the most important thing about a health care system is its political purity, not whether it saves lives or helps people have good health.
So why are homeopathic treatments acceptable? Aren’t they made by for-profit companies?
HH:
“When you accepted a homeopathic remedy for your allergies, did you first “have to be convinced by the homeopathic system that all precautions have been taken by the company, the government, and the doctors, so that all matters are transparent and that nothing shady is going on.”?”
Do you know of anyone who has died from homeopathy?
daedalus2u:
“Yes, we see where you are coming from, the most important thing about a health care system is its political purity, not whether it saves lives or helps people have good health.”
You’re very confused.
Chris:
“So, libby, what is your plan on how to prevent infant deaths from pertussis? Be sure to show all documentation of its efficacy.”
Vaccination is a good idea. Putting it in the hands of those with questionable ethics, not so good.
HH
“Do I have to do your reading for you?”
Here’s a good rule to follow.
What you wouldn’t dare say to a person’s face, you probably shouldn’t say sitting safely behind a computer monitor at some undisclosed location.
daedalus2u:
“So why are homeopathic treatments acceptable? Aren’t they made by for-profit companies?”
Look, I can’t change the system. There are no places to get anything to do with health that doesn’t go through private hands. I didn’t create the present system, and I wouldn’t have created it.
Homeopathic remedies are acceptable (now here’s the important part) TO ME because they have worked and there are no side effects. Conventional medicine has provided me with only limited success, and occasionally some unpleasant side effects.
Not quite sure why we’re talking about homeopathy.
libby:
Okay. That is a start. Should we all move to Denmark when our children are young? Because their vaccine company is owned by the government.
I think you have mistaken this blog as something it is not. It is called ScienceBasedMedicine, not EconomicSystemMedicine. If you wish to discuss naturalization of medicine and pharmaceutical companies, please find another forum.
Now if you have issues with the DTaP or Tdap vaccine of the USA, UK, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Venezuela, Australia (which is where the above video is from), Spain, Russia, Korea, India and elsewhere provide specifics that pertain to those two vaccines. Nothing else.
In the USA you would need to explain exactly how the ethics of the CDC, the FDA, and every single county and state health department fails to meet your ethical criteria. Or for the case of where the video above was made, please be specific how the health departments in each jurisdiction in Australia is culpable.
What about the ethics of Viera Scheibner? Is she ethical? Should she come under your microscope of criticism?
Let me clarify: This why you do not discuss the economic system of each country. Stick with the science. The science is common to all of the countries, states and counties. The economic and political systems are not. To discuss those, to somewhere else.
And really, if you are going to whine about “ethics” and then regard homeopathy as some kind of ideal, you have shattered several fictional irony meters. Again you need to see this site:
http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/
@libby,
“Do you know of anyone who has died from homeopathy?”
I know of cases where someone died because they rejected effective treatment and used homeopathy instead. I know of many cases where people died from vaccine-preventable diseases. I know that deaths from vaccines are rare and that vaccines are safer than not vaccinating.
“What you wouldn’t dare say to a person’s face, you probably shouldn’t say sitting safely behind a computer monitor at some undisclosed location.”
Thank you for the etiquette lesson. Proper etiquette also involves answering the question you have been asked. If I had been face to face with you, I not only would have dared, but I probably would have said something far harsher than “Do I have to do your reading for you?” The distance of a computer allows time to think and to respond more judiciously.
I’ll ask once more: what do you have to say about the Viera Scheibner video? Do you reject pertussis vaccine? This is not a difficult question. If you had a 2 month old baby, would you allow the pediatrician to give him the shots per the recommended schedule? By the way, when was your last tetanus shot?
@Libby
“Look, I can’t change the [economic] system. There are no places to get anything to do with health that doesn’t go through private hands. I didn’t create the present system, and I wouldn’t have created it. ”
And without that economic system that you so despise do you think there would be Apple computers or A330 jets? The last pure command economies are Cuba, economically dependent on Venezuela, and North Korea, economically dependent on China. There are, of course, blended economic systems – is there one that you find particularly attractive?
I wonder how you came to believe that government hands are so much cleaner than private hands? Perhaps you should travel more – and not just to eat lamb in Morocco or fois gras in the Alsace. Spend some time with the people who live and work in these places.
Libby:
I take no prescription medication. I take only a vitamin D supplement occasionally due to my latitude and occupation. I consume large, some would say massive, amounts of fruits and vegetables. I exercise 6-7 days per week. My father, who is over 70, also takes no medication, exercises regularly and eats a diet mainly comprised of home-cooked meals. My grandmothers are nearly 100 on one side and over 80 on the other. I am in excellent health, and given my genes and lifestyle I expect to remain so for a long, long time. The influence of drug companies on me is nigh-zero and I spend much of my time yelling at the commercials on TV that advertise direct to consumers, both in for drugs and for those moronic orthomolecular clinics.
You seem to think that merely because I disagree with you and believe science should play a more significant role in decisions about health that somehow I am a pawn for the drug companies. You are wrong, and apparently incapable of honestly parsing the evidence or unwilling to change your mind. What you are experiencing is cognitive dissonance – you are attempting to maintain your belief that you are smart, smarter than everyone who disagrees with you. In order to do so, you must find some way of dismissing, rather than dealing with, their arguments. This allows you to maintain your belief in your own “smartness” and never have to face the fact that you are pretty clearly wrong. This comes at the expense of reality.
I admit I am wrong all the time, when confronted with evidence. I think drug companies do bad science all the time – note for instance my comment on Steve Novella’s post today. But I also think that properly supervised, they are capable of manufacturing high-quality products that enhance quality and quantity of life. The alternative would be a government-based system of research and manufacturing, which would come with its own costs and benefits. Reality is complicated and made up of compromises, best-fit solutions and cost-benefit analyses. Slogans, while simple, are often wrong.
If you can come up with a third way, kudos and I hope the world benefits. Just claiming the current system is irredeemably flawed and we should burn them all to the ground is not a solution. I’m sure it makes you feel better and quite self-righteous, but that doesn’t help anyone else.
“Big pharma” and the pharma-shill gambit are not arguments, they are not critical thinking, they are lazy tricks people use to avoid thinking hard and changing their minds.
Libby:
Yes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/homeopathy-baby-death-couple-jailed
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm
The risks of homeopathy aren’t that it is dangerous in and of itself (bar to diabetics since it’s basically wet sugar), it is in the dangers of avoiding real medicine, real treatment, real interventions. It is in quacks who recommend avoiding evidence-based treatment in favour of a fairy tale in which perfect health is available if people just believe hard enough. It’s in people who believe in slogans and ritual purity over prevention with vaccination and treatment with real medicine. It’s in people making money off of a prescientific bit of unjustified wishfull thinking. Yes, homeopaths make money off of their practice, which is a far more direct conflict of interest in my mind than any faced by a primary practitioner. They are directly and strongly motivated, by both a commitment to an ideology and through direct financial incentives, to actively ignore evidence that contradicts the party line they have toed.
Homeopaths drank the kool-aid and are now selling it to you and your family. Don’t forget that in this metaphor, kool-aid kills. And don’t give me any crap about medicine killing; medicines have risks, but they also have benefits beyond helping people feel good about being misled.
HH:
“I know of cases where someone died because they rejected effective treatment and used homeopathy instead. I know of many cases where people died from vaccine-preventable diseases. I know that deaths from vaccines are rare and that vaccines are safer than not vaccinating.”
I call this the celery/carrot argument. A person chooses to eat celery instead of carrots resulting in a deficiency in Vitamin A. Therefore the celery is to blame.
It’s a fallacious argument used a lot by conventional medicine adherents and wouldn’t hold up on the first day of a first year logic class.
Chris:
“…….Should we all move to Denmark when our children are young? Because their vaccine company is owned by the government.”
I have no plans to do so. You can if you like.
“……please find another forum.”
Nope. I like this one just fine.
“Now if you have issues with the DTaP or Tdap vaccine of the USA, UK, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Venezuela, Australia (which is where the above video is from), Spain, Russia, Korea, India and elsewhere provide specifics that pertain to those two vaccines. Nothing else.”
Sorry. I don’t answer vague rambling questions.
“In the USA you would need to explain exactly how the ethics of the CDC, the FDA, and every single county and state health department fails to meet your ethical criteria. Or for the case of where the video above was made, please be specific how the health departments in each jurisdiction in Australia is culpable.”
Wrong. Those who tell me their products are safe have to actually be telling me the truth. I took Hismanal for hayfever because it was ‘safe’ and AFTERWARDS it was withdrawn because of a risk of death, cardiovascular adverse events, anaphylaxis, and serious drug interactions. You already know my story on Zomax.
I tend not to give anyone too many opportunities to kill me.
WLU:
“The risks of homeopathy aren’t that it is dangerous in and of itself (bar to diabetics since it’s basically wet sugar), it is in the dangers of avoiding real medicine, real treatment, real interventions.”
Real medicines. Like Hismanal and Zomax. Perfectly safe, except when they’re not.
Let me tell you how I deal with chemicals I might need.
If I need a drug, I don’t buy it from drug companies. I find out the active ingredient. I find out what plant it comes from. Then I go to my herbalist and he gives me the plant, or herb, containing the chemical.
It costs on average $3 to $8 for a significant bag of the stuff that seems to last forever. I have to experiment a little with the dosage but I quickly find the right amount and carry on taking it for pennies a day.
99.9% of the people, including those on this board, dutifully get their prescription from the doctor and head to the drug store spending $40 or $60 or maybe a lot more for a 2 week supply of some chemical the drug company has extracted from a plant and refined into a capsule or pill.
People do this because they can’t imagine resisting orders from their ‘superiors’. They do this because they’ve lost their ability to think, to be creative, to resist. They’ve been told to be obedient, to be compliant, to follow the rules, which really means, do not think for themselves but leave it to the experts: the doctors, the specialists, the scientists, the researchers, the drug company executives, the politicians, those who really know what’s good for the rest of us and can relieve us from the task of thinking for ourselves.
libby,
I do not object to homeopathy on the basis of any lack of safety, but on the basis of its ineffectiveness. An effective drug has risks that must be put into a risk/benefit assessment. People must be informed of risks and then decide if they think the benefit is worth taking the risk. People taking homeopathy should be told that there is little or no risk but that any perceived effect is due to a placebo response or other factors (natural course of illness, etc.), and then they can decide whether the absence of risk justifies using a remedy that does nothing objective but may elicit a nonspecific response.
Your celery/carrot argument is not a helpful analogy. The celery is not to blame: it is the decision to forgo carrots that results in a vitamin deficiency. If someone uses homeopathy instead of a vaccine and develops the disease, homeopathy is not to blame. The choice not to get the vaccine is to blame.
libby:
And yet you blindly take homeopathy, even though it is nothing but magical thinking about the “memory of water.” Well, why can the water remember the salt for “Nat Mur” but forget all the sewage that was in it?
You really have no idea what you are talking about. You blather on about pharmaceutical companies and “ethics”, yet you quite blithely are resigned to accept the blatant lie that is homeopathy.
Really, that is quite silly.
You said “Vaccination is a good idea. Putting it in the hands of those with questionable ethics, not so good.”
That does not make sense. At the present time there are three companies that make the DTaP vaccine in the USA. They are regulated by the FDA, studied by the CDC and the IOM, and each and every public health agency in this country works to provide the vaccines to their population. They are administered both in the offices of private medical providers and public clinics.
Whose ethics are in question? Who in the three companies? Who specifically working for the federal government? Which particular county health department? Who in the public clinics? Who in the private medical practices?
And yet you are willing to be lied to by someone giving you homeopathy. Why are you not questioning the ethics of Viera Scheibner?
At least the regulatory bodies in the USA removed Zomax from the market almost thirty years ago. Who regulates the homeopaths and their fake medications? Do you think the homeopath who told Penelope Dingle how to cure her cancer was ethical? (very big file)
There is a word for someone who whinges about real pharmaceuticals that are actively regulated, but is blithely taken in by the fallacy that is homeopathy is anything but placebo: hypocrite.
libby,
“If I need a drug, I don’t buy it from drug companies. I find out the active ingredient. I find out what plant it comes from. Then I go to my herbalist and he gives me the plant, or herb, containing the chemical.”
While that may work for some chemicals, it won’t work for many drugs you might need. Your herbalist can’t give you penicillin in a plant version, or vaccines, or insulin. He can give you digitalis leaf instead of Digoxin, but this is dangerous since the therapeutic dose is so close to the toxic dose and since plant products are so variable. Why would you choose the plant when you could get a precise dose in pure form in a pill, with a test available to check blood levels and an antibody available to reverse levels that are too high? Herbal remedies vary in content and have been found to be mis-labelled and contaminated with everything from heavy metals to prescription drugs.
In your effort to avoid prescription drugs that might be unsafe, you may be subjecting yourself to remedies that are even less safe.
Dr. Hall:
It would also not work as protection from pertussis. I don’t think there is any way to isolate the pertussis toxoids from a plant.
Libby, your carrot/celery analogy is flawed because in this case the celery (which would contain a homeopathic amount of nutrition, ahahaha) is actively telling you the carrot will make your vitamin A deficiency worse. You appear to have misunderstood the harm of homeopathy; homeopaths, that is people and not vegetables, actively discourage seeking needed treatment for chronic and acute illnesses that are deadly. They actively discourage vaccination.
Regarding your personal herbalism practice, I’m curious what you would do for the following conditions:
Malaria
Type I diabetes
Stroke caused by blood clot
Addison’s disease
Cancer (you pick the type)
Acute heavy metal toxicity
Hypervitaminosis A, D and E
HIV/AIDS
Influenza causing pneumonia
Hemophilia
Huntington’s disease
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Poisoning due to acute dosing of rattlesnake venom
And if they hadn’t been essentially eliminated through vaccination:
Polio
Smallpox
Also, for minor pains I assume you use willow bark? How do you control for the affect of salicylic acid on the stomach, which is far worse than that of Aspirin?
Most people of reasonable income in the first world are in reality fairly healthy due to vaccination, water treatment and a ready supply of food. More so if their income affords them the means to exercise regularly, take days off, purchase and prepare fresh meals and post on message boards justifying their choices in life. In other words, you’re damned lucky to live in a land where a massive public health efforts have improved the lives of nearly all citizens and have sufficient income to be able to avoid most chronic diseases. You’re also probably lucky enough to have avoided any congenital diseases that killed people in the past and require medications to prevent, treat or slow down the progression of. Just because most people can be fairly certain they won’t die of infectious diseases doesn’t mean we can dispense with the medical system because we know a small number will get sick irrespective our best precautions.
Your current approach is essentially dosing yourself with an unknown quantity of an active agent of uncertain freshness with an unregulated amount of potentially toxic herbicides and/or pesticides. Unless you’re providing titers for the active ingredient, you’re not controlling the dose you get. Do you account for things like the conditions of growth? The amount of protective molecules most plants produce – the active ingredient used in medication – varies according to pest levels, sunlight, water, soil conditions and probably a whole lot more I know nothing about. Do you use fresh or dried? Do you account for the amount of time spent in storage? How do you know how long it has been? Does your herbalist inform you of the symptoms of acute toxicity and the appropriate steps to take? Nature doesn’t care about your assumptions, it’ll kill you no matter how nice you think it is.
I applaud your libertarian approach to health care, mostly because of it’s Darwinian implications. Over the course of several generations the results should be self-evident.
[...] are more hazardous to public health than the anti-vaccine movement – because there’s a body count affiliated with their actions. When vaccination rates drop, communicable diseases re-emerge, and [...]
I think you can state this more firmly. Libby IS subjecting herself to remedies that are even less safe. No “may” about it.
Chris, I must presume that Libby is a strong proponent of genetically modifying plants so that they do produce things like pertussis antigen and insulin so that people with an aversion to non-plant sources of medicines can get them from plants.
daedalus2u:
Though, should we tell her about research trying to grow influenza vaccines from plants?
HH:
“The celery is not to blame”
Ergo, homeopathy is not to blame.
HH:
“I do not object to homeopathy on the basis of any lack of safety, but on the basis of its ineffectiveness.”
There are things science cannot explain that are factual. For instance, physicists cannot explain why atomic clocks will show a different time, although only very slightly, on 2 different satellites traveling one revolution around the earth at the same speed but in OPPOSITE directions.
If homeopathy were ineffective, I would be sneezing, dripping from the nose, have aching sinuses and itchy eyes for 6 to 7 weeks every summer.
You or anyone or any group of professional medical experts is welcome to spend a few weeks with me any summer and watch what happens when I head into my hayfever season and then watch as I take the remedy. You can then observe what happens when I go off it and the symptoms return, then again what occurs when I go back on the remedy. You can observe me 24/7 to ensure I’m not cheating by taking drugs.
Forget the conventional medicine studies on homeopathy. They’re riddled with holes, the worst examples of the application of the scientific method I’ve ever seen.
Only those who claim homeopathy works are to blame, because by definition homeopathy is the equivalent to watching a fire engulf a house and whispering “help help” instead of dialing “911″ to call the fire department.
Really, do you not yet understand that homeopathy is just a completely useless placebo? Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. If you place any value on “ethics” this should make you actually attempt to open your mind to how ridiculous it is to believe in homeopathy.
So where to you place the ethics of Viera Scheibner?
Chris:
“At least the regulatory bodies in the USA removed Zomax from the market almost thirty years ago.”
Funny, I didn’t get my money back from McNeil Pharmaceuticals for putting my life at risk over a goddamn pain killer. Not even a “we’re sorry” card. They just pocketed the money and ran.
Actually they can. When and what was the last physics class you took? Because it was explained to me quite clearly in my last college physics class.
I also have hayfever, and even without medication it waxes and wanes. Using homeopathy is the same as taking nothing (it also depends on what airborne allergens are circulating). Which is why you were challenged to show that it works for a non-self-limiting condition.
It is also completely worthless for any real bacterial infection like pertussis.
HH:
“Why would you choose the plant when you could get a precise dose in pure form in a pill”
You mean such precision like – take 2 to 4 pills, 2 to 3 times a day?
You mean that kind of precision?
Logic fail.
HH:
“While that (matching the active ingredient of drugs via an herb) may work for some chemicals, it won’t work for many drugs you might need.”
Correct.
“Why would you choose the plant when you could get a precise dose in pure form in a pill…”
I have my own methods. I don’t like to rely on others to tell me what dosage I should take. I was told Zomax and Hismanal were safe at specified dosages and we all know how that turned out.
“Herbal remedies vary in content and have been found to be mis-labelled and contaminated with everything from heavy metals to prescription drugs.”
I agree. You have to be vigilant no matter what you ingest. Our food is contaminated, our water is contaminated. All unnecessary in my opinion.
“In your effort to avoid prescription drugs that might be unsafe, you may be subjecting yourself to remedies that are even less safe.”
Perhaps. However it is a cheaper method of killing oneself
Chris:
“Actually they can. When and what was the last physics class you took? Because it was explained to me quite clearly in my last college physics class.”
AND……
@libby,
“You mean such precision like – take 2 to 4 pills, 2 to 3 times a day?
You mean that kind of precision?”
No, I was talking about Digoxin, where such dosage instructions are never given. When medications are given with variable instructions like that, the patient can safely adjust the dose as needed to control symptoms. With Digoxin, a precise dose is given to maintain a blood level that is effective without being toxic. The therapeutic dose is very close to the toxic dose. The dose from digitalis leaf is not as controllable. Prescription Digoxin is far safer than its herbal counterpart.
I’m wondering… you reject the scientific studies that have been done on homeopathy so far. What if studies were designed that met all your specifications for good science and they consistently showed that homeopathy didn’t work? Would you change your mind? What if you yourself were submitted to an n=1 double blind placebo controlled trial and found that you couldn’t tell the placebo from the real thing? Would you change your mind? Personal experience is very compelling, but it regularly leads people to false conclusions. Do you think you are somehow exempt?
Chris:
I stated: “Funny, I didn’t get my money back from McNeil Pharmaceuticals for putting my life at risk over a goddamn pain killer. Not even a “we’re sorry” card. They just pocketed the money and ran.”
You stated “Logic fail.”
Zomax was only removed when McNeil Pharmaceuticals could not keep the lid on the drug’s serious side effects.
Did you not read the story on Zomax? I provided you the information about how the company protected itself through the courts to suppress information about the damage the drug was causing. They continued to sell a drug THEY KNEW WAS DANGEROUS. No one went to jail. No fines were levied. Just another day at the office.
If you want to have a real discussion that’s fine, but if you just want a YouTube-esque experience you’ve got the wrong person.
@libby,
““The celery is not to blame”
Ergo, homeopathy is not to blame.”
The homeopathic remedy itself is not to blame. The false beliefs of the person who chose it over effective treatment are to blame.
HH:
“…you reject the scientific studies that have been done on homeopathy so far.”
Absolutely. They should be an embarrassment to science.
“What if studies were designed that met all your specifications for good science and they consistently showed that homeopathy didn’t work?”
I think that this would not happen.
In any case, the better question is, why hasn’t this been done? Why has so much money been put into blatantly faulty studies?
“Would you change your mind?”
Can’t answer that because if I know it works for me then how could a legitimate study come to a false conclusion.
“What if you yourself were submitted to an n=1 double blind placebo controlled trial and found that you couldn’t tell the placebo from the real thing?”
I don’t think that’s possible in my case because I had many failures, including homeopathic remedies, that didn’t work, before I finally found the one thing that worked with no ill effects. What didn’t work at all was looking up a homeopathic remedy in a book and then taking that.
It was when I went to a recommended homeopath who gave me the appropriate dosage of a remedy designed for the pollen in my area. Even then I had no confidence in it, until my symptoms vanished. I had to admit then that things were not what they seemed.
It would be very hard to match that experience in a study that would not allow for failures.
“Would you change your mind? Personal experience is very compelling, but it regularly leads people to false conclusions. Do you think you are somehow exempt?”
I’m not recommending homeopathy to anyone, and I have not done so on this board. I’m only telling you what I have experienced.
HH:
“The homeopathic remedy itself is not to blame. The false beliefs of the person who chose it over effective treatment are to blame.”
Yes. We all make choices everyday. Having been subjected to several drugs that turned out to be less than perfect, to put it mildly, has altered my perception of the drug industry, questioning their motives, the structure in place, the effectiveness of the regulatory bodies, etc.
If the system had transparency I would be less harsh in my criticisms. I did not actively and consciously turn away from our legal drug culture without reason. It simply failed to live up to my standards.
Oooh, science fail. Just because science can’t explain something right now doesn’t mean it can never be explained. Creationists think so, but they are morons who are motivated to ignore reality in favour of a preconcieved notion.
Have you read any of the posts that discuss cognitive biases (specifically confirmation biases) and scientific control? We’ve got an explanation for how homeopathy “works” and it doesn’t require rewriting the laws of physics and chemistry, it merely notes the effects of a lengthy consultation and the human ability to fool itself.
Done, please provide me your home address and I will begin labelling lactose pills in preparation.
Keep in mind that good science involves testing something neutrally, not confirming what you want to believe. Science is about method and rigor, not results.
Do your methods involve applied kinesiology? I really, really hope so.
We do know how Zomax and Hismanal turned out – when rare side effects appeared, they were withdrawn from the market. Yay for post-marketing surveillance!
And here’s the rub. Nothing is perfect. There will always be side effects to medications because they are imprecisely-targeted molecules. There’s no mendacity or duplicity on the part of companies here, we simply have an imperfect understanding of the body, which is itself designed by evolution and thus a combination of woefully flawed and cunningly jury-rigged. Libby, you’re asking for perfection which we will never have, and if we forced the kind of studies for rare outcomes you seem to be demanding then medications would be far more expensive and there would be fewer of them. You probably see that as a bad thing, but I prefer that when I am older and have cancer, they’ll have new drugs that are effective. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Also, you never responded to my post above. What herbal remedies will you use to treat blood clots, AIDS, smallpox and Huntington’s disease? Because apparently every single disease that exists has a plant-based cure. Because apparently plants exist solely to treat human illness.
Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
Why do you accept scientific evidence for one thing and not for others?
@libby,
So in essence, you are saying that you know a truth (that your homeopathic remedy is effective for you) and that you can predict what scientific testing would show, or that if it didn’t show what you wanted you would reject it. I can imagine medieval blood-letters saying exactly the same kind of thing: they had strong, direct, repeated personal experience that blood-letting was effective for treating fevers and other conditions and even for saving lives. They were wrong, and you could be too. The scientific method requires acknowledging that we might be wrong and testing our hypotheses to ask whether they are correct. There are many examples of people who were just as convinced by their experience as you are but who were proven to be wrong. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.
@HH
Agreed, with an overall point of us not so much speaking different languages as living in (literally) different universes. Ours have rules independent of belief, hers apparently does not.
libby refused to say if she was harmed. Hence her whinging about not getting a refund was a logic fail.
I used to take the antihistamine Seldane, it was also removed from the market. I was not personally harmed and I never expected a refund.
It is also a logic fail for her to whine about “ethics” in pharmaceuticals, yet continue to tout the benefits of homeopathy, and ignore the actions of Viera Schreibner.
She obviously lives on the same planet at Th1Th2: Htrae (also known as Bizarro World). As such she should be ignored, or just reminded to stay on topic and present real data. Anytime she mentions Zomax she will be asked if she was harmed.
Chris:
“She obviously lives on the same planet at Th1Th2: Htrae (also known as Bizarro World)”
I warned about such nonsense.
Goodbye.
HH:
“So in essence, you are saying that you know a truth (that your homeopathic remedy is effective for you) and that you can predict what scientific testing would show, or that if it didn’t show what you wanted you would reject it.”
I don’t see any other explanation other than that it works for me. It’s happened consistently over 6 years, and when I forget to take the remedy, the symptoms return.
I can’t predict a scientific study. There were 2 studies in BMJ 1 year apart, the first showing increased risk of breast cancer by consuming grapefruit, and the second reversing that conclusion.
I think reject is too strong. A study that followed protocol for homeopathy that showed it a failure would lead me to believe that what I am experiencing is a very rare positive reaction.
“I can imagine medieval blood-letters saying exactly the same kind of thing: they had strong, direct, repeated personal experience that blood-letting was effective for treating fevers and other conditions and even for saving lives. They were wrong, and you could be too.”
This is valid. But we have to agree that blood-letters were offering their services to mostly uneducated illiterate people who could be easily swayed, possibly by the insertion of the notion that it is
God’s will, or that the ‘bad blood’ must be drained (possibly a link to the etymology of the phrase). Science has made our society less vulnerable to medieval-like belief systems.
“The scientific method requires acknowledging that we might be wrong and testing our hypotheses to ask whether they are correct. There are many examples of people who were just as convinced by their experience as you are but who were proven to be wrong. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.”
I wish I had an explanation for what I’m experiencing.
daedalus2u
Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
By extension, if I managed to make it on foot across a busy 12 lane highway you would then claim that this activity was safe and an appropriate place for children to play.
“I wish I had an explanation for what I’m experiencing.”
Here is one explanation: Obecalp.
“Just because science can’t explain something right now doesn’t mean it can never be explained.”
Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy.
“Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy.”
Why not apply that to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc?
My last post was addressed to WilliamLawrenceUtridge
weing:
“Why not apply that to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc?”
A child’s belief system is not applicable to this topic.
weing:
“Here is one explanation: Obecalp.”
Doubtful.
Why would placebo be doubtful. It’s much more the likely explanation. Do you think you are immune to placebo effects? I have seen a patient have an anaphylactic reaction after taking a test medications. When we checked afterward, the patient had received a placebo. I would call that a nocicebo effect. There are patients, like you, who experience side effects from medications just because they don’t like pharmaceuticals, but will not experience them if they think that they are “natural”, homeopathic, etc.
@Libby
“Libby, did Zomax work for you? What toxicity symptoms did you have from zomax? What basis do you have for feeling that zomax is toxic or potentially harmful?
By extension, if I managed to make it on foot across a busy 12 lane highway you would then claim that this activity was safe and an appropriate place for children to play.”
Of course we wouldn’t claim that; and no one has suggested that Zomax is harmless. You believe that Zomax is toxic not because of any direct personal experience but because you read that the drug company covered up information about side effects. You are willing to accept the drug company’s evidence that it is harmful. Yet you are not willing to accept favorable evidence about drugs when it comes from drug companies. Isn’t this a double standard?
Presumably Zomax performed as intended and relieved your pain, and you were not personally harmed.
By extension of your highway argument, if you get away with rejecting dilating drugs for eye exams and with substituting herbal remedies and homeopathic placebos for effective medicines (crossing the highway safely), that doesn’t mean that what you are doing is wise or that the highway is safe.
“A child’s belief system is not applicable to this topic.”
How so? Homeopathy is a child’s belief system.
@libby,
“I don’t see any other explanation other than that it works for me.”
The fact that you can’t think of an explanation doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. The rest of us see an explanation.
Medieval blood-letters didn’t see any other explanation for their observation that blood-letting worked other than the balancing of the four humors.
“we have to agree that blood-letters were offering their services to mostly uneducated illiterate people who could be easily swayed… Science has made our society less vulnerable to medieval-like belief systems.”
We do not have to agree and we do not agree. Unfortunately that is simply not true. Many counterexamples have been offered on our pages. Just think of all the educated modern victims of electrodermal testing that I wrote about 3 days ago. Think of all the modern educated people who believe in dowsing, astrology, ghosts, and other superstitions.
Me:
Crap, HTML fail. Libby’s comment was “Exactly. Why are you not applying that to homeopathy” and everything that follows is my reply.
Can editors adjust comments? It’d be nice if someone fixed my blockquotes tags (or we could preview our comments or we could edit our comments!)
HH:
“We do not have to agree and we do not agree. Unfortunately that is simply not true.”
Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
“Because homeopathy has been explained – placebo.”
What study are you using that explains homeopathy?
“Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.”
And you are so much more superior. Yet you believe nonsense just like they did.
“What study are you using that explains homeopathy?”
Since when do you accept studies? I thought personal anecdotes were superior to any studies for you. Do we really have to do studies to show that the Tooth Fairy is not real?
libby:
Followed by a string of comments from you, that do not make any sense. (oh, and physics can explain the phenomena you mentioned, even if you don’t understand it)
You believe in the fairy tale of homeopathy. There is no reason to take you seriously.
@ libby,
“Medieval Europe was populated by an educated, literate society? That’s news to me.”
There were a few educated, literate people even back then, and they were just as likely to accept blood-letting as the illiterate, perhaps even more so because they were able to understand the theory behind it. It wasn’t a matter of simple gullibility. They had no science, no training in critical thinking, and blood-letting was the standard treatment accepted by all doctors, taught in medical schools, and written in the textbooks and was considered plausible because of the 4-humor theory. So they can be excused for believing in it. Modern educated people who have studied science have no excuse for believing in homeopathy.
“What study are you using that explains homeopathy?”
We are not using any single study. We are going on the whole body of published studies and basic scientific knowledge as well as on the knowledge of human psychology and all the reasons people reach faulty conclusions about ineffective treatments. Only science can help us avoid those errors. Either you fail to understand this concept or you think you are somehow exempt.
May I suggest some readings on medieval medicine for libby? I have enjoyed reading the works of Karen Cushman. Her books on old forms of medicine, Matilda Bone and The Midwife’s Apprentice, are good examples of real medicine versus magical thinking.
Hmm, her latest work looks interesting. I shall have to see if the library has it. Oh, it does… I have reserved a couple of her books.
The real problem with medieval life wasn’t literacy or education – the real problem was a system of medicine that wasn’t based on empirical finding. In Europe you had an entire system based on what one (or a couple) dead Greek guys thought about without any substantive testing of the system against what actually existed. In China, they it was a mythical emperor, and so on. Successful outcomes were based on pure chance. Without a means of separating real medical effects from natural healing, your ability to notice real improvements is severely impaired.
Libby, the explanation of homeopathy is based on the bodies of literature on homeopathic preparations , as well as placebos. The biggest “clue” or most relevant finding is that if you do a well-controlled double-blinded test of homeopathic preparations versus placebos, there is no replicable difference. Homeopathic studies are either characterized by a lack of control (X patients with Y condition took Z preparation and two weeks later felt better) or by such a large number of outcome measure that you expect some statistically significant results by pure chance. The real test comes when you repeat the same study and a totally different and unrelated result is now significant. There is no convergence. In the mean time, homeopathy has a large number of placebo-enhancing measures built into it to enhance the perception that it’s helping. It also a large number of logical fallacies built into it such that it can explain away failures and allow time for natural healing to occur.
So when faced with the choice of deciding between an improbable methodology that violates entire bodies of well-established knowledge, or simply noting that it’s effects are compatible with an explanation based on placebo (and actual empirical findings substantiate this point), the choice is easy. If there were genuine evidence that some, or even one remedy had an effect, then scientists would be hugely motivated to investigate. But there’s not.
Again I direct you to the books I recommended above:
Homeopathy:How it Really Works by Jay Shelton, Prometheus Books, ISBN 159102109X (google books: http://books.google.ca/books?id=WlU4AQAAIAAJ)
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell
Trick or Treatment by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst
Because really, what do you have to lose? You may find your self convinced and change your mind, but what is the benefit of consistency if it is harmful or makes your life less enjoyable? They’re fascinating, well-written books that cover a lot of ground in an intensely readable format. Well worth the time spent.
weing:
“And you are so much more superior.”
Thank you. But I don’t think that’s true. Perhaps I’m more opened minded than average.
“Homeopathy is a child’s belief system.”
So there are children discussing homeopathy?
“I have seen a patient have an anaphylactic reaction after taking a test medications. When we checked afterward, the patient had received a placebo. I would call that a nocicebo effect. There are patients, like you, who experience side effects from medications just because they don’t like pharmaceuticals, but will not experience them if they think that they are “natural”, homeopathic, etc.”
Ah so now testimonial evidence is quite sufficient to prove your point. Interesting.
“Since when do you accept studies? I thought personal anecdotes were superior to any studies for you. Do we really have to do studies to show that the Tooth Fairy is not real?”
A simple, no I don’t have any studies, would suffice.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
“The biggest “clue” or most relevant finding is that if you do a well-controlled double-blinded test of homeopathic preparations versus placebos, there is no replicable difference.”
A general and therefore meaningless statement.
Let’s discuss the Lancet 2005 study on homeopathy which Dawkins promoted as the meta-analysis of meta-analyses, and I can show you an example of a modern scientific atrocity.
HH:
“Modern educated people who have studied science have no excuse for believing in homeopathy.”
Let’s use our words carefully.
I don’t believe in homeopathy. I use it and it works. That has nothing to do with a belief system.
@libby,
“I don’t believe in homeopathy. I use it and it works. That has nothing to do with a belief system.”
Does too. You believe homeopathy works for you. You believe your personal observations constitute proof. You are unwilling to believe that your observations or your interpretation of those observations could be wrong. You are unwilling to accept that we can all be fooled and that science is the only corrective.
Libby:
You are apparently rather selective about which you are open minded. Open minded means being willing to change one’s mind, and you don’t seem willing to even discuss it. You’re also either ignorant of, or not open-minded regarding the scientific method
It’s pretty specific actually – when homeopathic treatments are compared to placebos, no difference is found. If a statistically significant finding occurs in one study, a second study that uses the same methodology does not produce the same finding. What’s general about this? If you want specifics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21733480 – “The database on studies of homeopathy and placebo in psychiatry is very limited, but results do not preclude the possibility of some benefit.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20486620 – “Several published outcome studies and some randomized controlled trials have shown that there may be a role for homeopathy in symptom relief and improving quality of life in patients touched by cancer. Such effects have not been demonstrated unequivocally…”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610 – “The findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223686 – “The limited evidence available does not demonstrate a statistically significant effect of homeopathic medicines for insomnia treatment. Existing RCTs were of poor quality and were likely to have been underpowered.”
Do you have any clinical trials that support homeopathy? Have you analyzed them according to scientific quality? The main criteria are, placebo controls, randomization, stratification, a sufficiently large number of patients, publication in a high-impact (or at least in a journal not involving the words “homeopathy” or “alternative” in the title), clearly defined outcome measures, and not an excessive number of them. That’s the criteria for a single trial, but for a program of research, you would look for replication of results across multiple trials.
Again, consistency over time, an accumulation of results, convergence on a single finding or set of findings. Compare the results of any accepted medical finding over time versus homeopathy. For instance, it took perhaps 20 years to go from basic science to treatment of H. pylori regarding ulcers. In contrast, homeopathy has existed for over 200 years and in that time it has split rather than converged.
““And you are so much more superior.”
Thank you. But I don’t think that’s true. Perhaps I’m more opened minded than average.”
ROFLMAO
– your observations or your interpretation of those observations could be wrong.
To be clear, the observations may be correct — they have several plausible explantions.
It is the how they are interpreted that is mainly in dispute, and If I recall correctly Libby herself has elsewhere allowed that she is not sure what they mean, even mentioning the possibility of placebo responses.
We are dealing with different levels of sophistication in what we like to call “science”. Libby has performed a primitive scientific experiment and drawn certain conclusions.
She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.
“She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.”
I think you are right. Superstitious behavior persists. Such is the power of variable interval reinforcement. Well-nigh impossible to extinguish.
HH:
“You believe homeopathy works for you.”
You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.
That’s a belief system.
Under the circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for libby to keep using her homeopathic remedy. I only wish she would say she “believes” it works for her rather than claiming to “know” it is effective. And I wish she knew enough about science and about psychology to recognize that she could be wrong. At least she isn’t extrapolating from her personal experience to claim that homeopathy “works” for everyone and everything. She makes more sense than Dana Ullman.
@libby,
“You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.”
NO I don’t! I never suggested any such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth!!
pmoran:
“To be clear, the observations may be correct — they have several plausible explantions.
It is the how they are interpreted that is mainly in dispute, and If I recall correctly Libby herself has elsewhere allowed that she is not sure what they mean, even mentioning the possibility of placebo responses.
We are dealing with different levels of sophistication in what we like to call “science”. Libby has performed a primitive scientific experiment and drawn certain conclusions.
She illustrates how compelling those experiences can be and why therapeutic oddities like homeopathy may never die out.”
I would add that I am not promoting homeopathy as an alternative to other choices, but am only relating my own experiences, which could be singular in nature.
I also would add that conclusions drawn from scientific study can, on occasion, be modified to accommodate other exigencies.
I always enjoy your input.
HH:
I stated: “You believe that corporate executives hold your health as a top priority over all other considerations.”
You stated: “NO I don’t! I never suggested any such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth!!”
You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?
HH:
“At least she isn’t extrapolating from her personal experience to claim that homeopathy “works” for everyone and everything.”
That would be a ludicrous position.
Perhaps this is a clearer way to express my position.
There is a temporal link between taking the homeopathic remedy and a substantial improvement in my condition, an event repeated many times.
It cannot be said that there is a causal link, due to the size of the group.
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
“You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?”
Is this a surprise? Even hospitals show 25-33% higher quality when they are run by physicians. http://www.amandagoodall.com/SS&MarticletJuly2011.pdf
weing:
I stated: “You mean you are actually admitting that corporate executives are operating studies on their products without placing our health as a top priority?”
You stated: “Is this a surprise?”
The surprise is that you and others on this board would put your health in the hands of those who consider your health less than top priority. A secondary surprise is that you wouldn’t actively support the SLA that would disallow court protected suppression of safety issues.
I am starting to piece together the puzzle as to why the system of conventional medicine is so flawed and perhaps dangerous.
I appreciate HH’s and weing’s candidness.
To sum up the present point:
Throughout a drug’s development, testing, approval by the regulatory board and marketing process, the health of the patient is never a top priority for those in a position of power in a pharma company.
Good information to have confirmed.
@libby,
I don’t know what kind of idealistic system you are imagining, but in the real world, companies are made up of humans with all their human failings. Charitable institutions may be formed with a top priority of helping people, but pharmaceutical companies are formed with the top priority of making a profit. Fortunately, their success depends on making a safe and effective product. They will not make a profit if the product has to be recalled, or if it generates lawsuits. In that sense, what’s best for patients is ultimately best for profits. We are well aware of the profit motive. We know that studies funded by drug companies are more likely to be positive. We understand the complexity of the process of deciding when there is a cause-and -effect relationship between a drug and reported adverse effects. We are in favor of total transparency and we deplore any kind of deceptive actions or coverups by drug companies. We have other institutions like the FDA whose top priority is to protect our welfare, but they are also made up of fallible humans who are partly motivated by other factors like job security and politics. The FDA acts to approve drugs before marketing and to take drugs off the market when problems are identified; there are flaws in that process. There are many things about the drug industry that need improvement: Marcia Angell wrote a whole book on the subject: “The Truth about Drug Companies and What to Do About it.”
Clinicians try to take all those factors into consideration when deciding what drugs to use. In most cases, the system works reasonably well. The profit motive stimulates the development of new drugs. Most drugs on the market are safe and effective. We support reform, but we do not advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be a mistake to categorically reject all pharmaceuticals out of suspicion and anger.
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
libby, do you know who Viera is? Prove it by telling us what her doctorate degree is in, and how it pertains to vaccines.
How do you account for recall bias, expectancy effects, confirmation bias, and of course, placebo? If you expect to get better due to taking a homeopathic preparation, chances are you will for a limited number of outcomes. Again, science isn’t simple simply because there are so many ways for humans to fool themselves if you don’t correct for them.
Well duh. We knew that. Every regular reader of this blog knows that. If you didn’t know that before you started reading these comments, then you really aren’t justified in lecturing anyone here.
The regulars on this blog probably don’t put their health in the hands of companies. They put their health in the hands of the government regulatory bodies that monitor companies and the products they sell – specifically the FDA or in my country, Health Canada.
Manufacturers of homeopathic preparations are not monitored as far as I know. Of course, this is because they are selling sugar pills and lies and their practice poses a health risk only to diabetics and people with life-threatening illnesses who refuse to take adavantage of real medicine.
You could start with the human being being the product of evolution, thus being flawed. Add to that the genetic diversity of existing humans. The human genome uses receptors in different ways, depending on what part of the body it is in (which is why SSRIs affect affects our gastrointestinal tract as well as the central nervous system – serotonin receptors are present in both the brain and the intestines). Some side effects are either somewhat, or are incredibly rare, which makes it hard to decide whether to sell a pain medication that has fatal side effects in one out of every million doses. Is it worth the risk? As someone with chronic pain. Industry is motivated to spin their results to make a profit. Monitoring is imperfect. Patients urgently demand new drugs. Cancer is a vicious bastard that evolves in the face of chemotherapy. People’s tolerance of risk is irrational and difficult to predict. So if you’re starting to realize the current system is imperfect, that’s great. If you’re only response is to reject all drugs, then you better start praying you never develop a blood clot. Not that prayer will help.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge
Are you hoping gov’ts will pass laws outlawing homeopathy?
Maybe we should contrast ourselves with CAM by calling ourselves practitioners of AABPM. Above and beyond placebo medicine.
@Libby
No, I’m hoping people become sufficiently educated and acquire adequate critical thinking skills such that homeopathy goes the way of bloodletting and the humoural theory of disease.
I’m hoping that people become sufficiently familiar with cognitive biases, human cognitive limitations and the ability of people to lie to themselves that they trust science more than their own experience when it comes to things like medicine.
I’m hoping homeopaths honestly and critically self-examine their practices and realize they’re acting as unlicensed therapists rather than medical practitioners.
I’m hoping governments and regulators take the threats to human health posed by homeopathy (and most CAM nonsense) seriously and begin placing criminal charges against homeopaths who cause harm by delaying effective treatment in truly life- or injury-threatening circumstances. This includes vaccine-bashing.
I’m hoping homeopathy becomes truly regulated, such that they might actually fucking realize what’s a life-threatening condition and what’s self-limiting.
I’m hoping government-funded health care plans become sufficiently informed that they cease funding all CAM.
If people want to throw away their disposable income on worthless sugar pills, I have no issue with that. I have issue with my tax dollars being spent on it, with people dying because of ignorance and with ideologically-blinded zealots placing themselves, their children, their patients and random strangers in real danger because they’re unfamiliar with doubt.
It’d also be nice if self-important douchebags stopped pretending the current system is irredemably flawed and started trying to improve it rather than pretending there are “natural” cures that work just as well. Smallpox was natural. Fuck nature.
weing:
“Maybe we should contrast ourselves with CAM by calling ourselves practitioners of AABPM. Above and beyond placebo medicine.”
Sounds fine to me.
My point is that if homeopathy is dangerous as professionals here seem to believe, then perhaps it should be outlawed.
@ libby:
Complete straw man. The danger, as repeatedly discussed, is when people avoid REAL medicine in favor of magic water. Nobody claims that homeopathy is in itself dangerous.
And yes, lying to people to extort money out of them certainly ought to be illegal. Homeopaths should be required to tell the truth (“this is just water, it doesn’t actually do anything”) but if people still want to waste their time and money on it after proper disclosure, then that’s their own problem and I see no cause to forbid that.
Scott, don’t forget that homeopaths have been found to actively discourage people from seeking effective treatment including vaccination. It’s not just a matter of the scientifically ignorant skipping over treatment, there is active advocacy against genuinely effective medicine.
What I’d really like to see in general is every single CAM-pusher put their money where their mouth is. If they oppose vaccination, they can take a trip to Nigeria and get sneezed on by a person with acute polio infection. If they blow a blood vesse, they can have acupuncture. If they get cancer, they can see just how effective coffee enemas are (here’s a hint – they aren’t).
That’s still a harm of avoiding real medicine as opposed to the magic water itself, so not what I understood libby to be saying.
Scott:
“…..I see no cause to forbid that (homeopathy).”
I can live with that.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
“….don’t forget that homeopaths have been found to actively discourage people from seeking effective treatment including vaccination.”
Is that actually true?
I have never gone to a homeopath that said this. In fact any of the ones I have gone to said that they prefer to work in conjunction with conventional medicine.
Perhaps there are extreme cases of someone espousing a radical position on the topic, such as Schreibner, but this is hardly representative. That would be similar to claiming that David Duke of the KKK represents the views of all Christians.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
http://littlemountainhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/fear-the-mmr-vaccine-not-the-measles/
http://www.homeopathy.com/clinic/168/homeopathic-flu-vaccine-information-vs-chemical-drug-injections
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/homeopathy.html
http://www.healinglifehomeopathy.com/homeopathic_prophylaxis.htm
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/immu.html
http://www.a-r-h.org/NewsandEvents/21%2009%2009%20Swine%20Flu%20Vaccine.pdf
http://www.a-r-h.org/NewsandEvents/21%2009%2009%20Swine%20Flu%20Vaccine.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043817
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12559777
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11587822
Homeopathic associations bleat about how they support vaccination and that they complement (real) medicine, but there’s definite evidence that patients are actively discouraged from seeking vaccination. Once again you are claiming your personal experience takes precedence over what investigations have indicated – there are homeopaths who indeed do recommend against vaccination.
Regards the “in conjunction with conventional medicine”, the “complementary” part of CAM, means “it’s not actually demonstrated as effective”. Medicine is medicine, CAM is something that’s claimed to be medicine but isn’t actually demonstrated as effective. “Working in conjunction with conventional medicine” means providing the unlicensed therapy I discussed above several times or providing an intervention that has not been proven effective while still charging for it. You rail against the drug companies, but it is actually illegal in the United States to charge for a medication or treatment that is classified as experimental.
Your comparison between the KKK and homeopaths is incorrect. The appropriate comparison would be to claim David Duke’s opinions represent what racists think. In both cases, one extreme nutjob gives voice to what a significant number think but do not say.
And for that matter, on SBM alone:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vaccine-wars-the-nccam-drops-the-ball/
A quote by Noam Chomsky sums up my views on why medical scientists and their adherents, although well meaning, seem to have a simplistic view of the nature of the corporate world, and unfortunately, an irrational trust of its activities.
You can read the entire article from the link below.
http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html#chomsky
“On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.”
Chomsky [12.9.06]
Medicine is an attempt to address the realities of human biology and infectious disease. Is Chomsky talking about medical problems or social ones? If you want peace between Israel and Palestine, call a politician. If you want to eliminate polio, call a doctor. Within medicine, there are some clearly correct answers, so long as you are talking about empirical results. For instance – how did the complexity of modern life come about? Evolution. Can you replace human blood with kerosine? No. Does vaccination prevent infectious diseases? Properly designed, yes. Is it risk-free? No. Does homeopathy work? Yes – provided by “work” you mean “is an extremely effecitve placebo”.
Though the policy and political implcations of a scientific finding aren’t necessarily obvious, any policy that is based on ideology rather than science will almost certainly be a bad thing – witness the Soviet policy of rejecting the theory of evolution in favour of neo-Lamarckism. And Chomsky himself would, I assume, endorse decisions about linguistics and efforts to understand how language is learned being based on data.
Again, I don’t mind morons chosing homeopathy over real medicine. I do mind tax money being wasted on it. I do mind people dying because homeopaths (and their patients) insisted their disease could be treated with sugar pills and logical fallacies. I do mind when parents kill or maim their child through inaction. I mind even more when this results in an infectious disease, preventible through vaccination, infecting someone whose vaccination was ineffective or who couldn’t get a vaccination in the first place.
Claiming the current regulatory, research and manufacturing environment is imperfect does not justify homeopathy. It also shows an astonishing naivety and double-standard. Do homeopathic manufacturers not make a profit? Do they channel any of that profit into testing their nostroms to ensure they are accurate? Do homeopathic manufacturers provide completely honest summaries of their data, or do they present them in the most promising light possible? Are you being a hypocrite?
According to WilliamLawrenceUtridge, all the researchers below are “morons”. Then again it is doubtful that WLU is even aware that the term “moron” was used to define one of the levels of intelligence in the early, sordid history of I.Q. testing. WLU might want to expand his vocabulary to include “imbecile” and “idiot”, other labels assigned by scientists to classify people, along with words such as “feeble-minded” and “dullness”
Personally, I will stick with the old-fashioned concept that different people have differing opinions.
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.
Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.
Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, et al. (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.
Oberbaum M, Yaniv I, Ben-Gal Y, et al. (2001). A randomized, controlled clinical trial of the homeopathic medication Traumeel S in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing stem cell transplantation. Cancer, 92:684–690.
Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, et al. (2005). Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. European Journal of Pediatrics, 164:758-767.
No libby, I referred to people who use unproven treatments to address serious illnesses as morons. And criticizing my wording suggests you can’t really address my main points. Researching interventions, even incredibly improbable ones, is a dubious but acceptable use of a researcher’s time, provided they give up on a pet hypothesis when it turns up null.
Funny thing, you cite Jacobs et al. 2003; what do you think of Jacobs et al. 2006?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278?dopt=AbstractPlus
Regarding Vickers 2006, did you read the conclusion? Homeopathy might reduce the duration of illness by perhaps 8 hours?
Regarding Taylor, 2000, what do you think about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18417053
Regarding Frei et al, 2005, what about this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943868
If you’re going to cite the literature, it’s usually good to cite review articles and meta-analyses because there’s less opportunity to be selective and ignore the results you don’t like. The conclusions for these studies are not promising, they’re certainly not support for the use of homeopathy as a form of treatment. As for what I think of these people’s research activities, I think it’s an unfortunate waste of time and money since homeopathy is fairly obvious nonsense, even more so because believers in homeopathy will ignore the evidence in favour of their preconcieved conclusion.
Vaccination works, homeopathy doesn’t.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
I just can’t get my head around the fact that rationalists such as yourself use terms like “moron” and “nazi” against those with whom you disagree, a decidedly irrational approach to a civil discussion.
In any case you do what is typical of many self-proclaimed rationalists. Studies that prove your point you embrace without question and those that negate your irrational beliefs you discard as nonsense, or change the goal of the study to suit your needs, or simply add more studies to the mix in a puerile gainsaying manner.
As Scott Atran has stated, “even good scientists join other people in unreason.”
I agree. I seriously doubt that conventional medical scientists are any less irrational than the rest of us.
It’s because we discuss these topics with people who profess to be rational but don’t seem to understand things like confirmation bias, expectancy effects, placebo, and so forth, then claim their personal experience trumps scientific findings.
Rational means understanding basic scientific findings, understanding how rational thought can go wrong and, oh, I don’t know, changing your mind when the research doesn’t support you. I’ve tried rational discussion and what I get back is cherry-picked results, anecdotes and dodges of my substantive points with conspiracy-mongering and irrelevant quotes from linguists. I’ve cited review articles rather than primary studies, review articles that come after the primary studies you cite, and you claim I’m the one with a problem citing research. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a primary and a secondary study, and that means we really can’t have a science-based discussion.
Scientists indeed are just as rational and irrational as the rest of us, at least in potential. What you’re missing are the numerous key points that make science different from nearly every other human endeavor. Science employs methods to counteract our biases, uses controls to account for regression to the mean, publicizes results for critical scrutiny, abandons ideas when they are unsupported, and above all, relies on empirical data to determine disputes. Science isn’t people, it’s a process. People are wrong, even scientists recognized as brilliant (I highly recommend you look up two Nobel prize winners – Kary Mullis and Linus Pauling). Science, as a process, converges on answers that allow the world to be reliably manipulated. It changes, and your horribly ignorant comment on the other thread seems to indicate you believe this is a flaw. So no, we don’t really have much to talk about because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Libby: Personally, I will stick with the old-fashioned concept that different people have differing opinions.
AND –
I agree. I seriously doubt that conventional medical scientists are any less irrational than the rest of us.
Maybe, yet surely you are not suggesting that all opinions are equally valid i.e. close to truth?
That cannot be true here. Homeopathic remedies either do whatever is being claimed or they don’t.
Yet first there needs to be some precision concerning the claim.
There is very little doubt in my mind that they seem to be able to “serve as medicine” for many clinical and public health purposes, and in most senses of that phrase, given a population that has had time to evolve and retain various useful ways of coping with illness .
That is not the same thing as a medicine “working” in the sense of possessing intrinsic therapeutic activity, and the weight of a vast amount of evidence from many different sources makes that of vanishingly small likelihood for homoepathy and many other “alternative” medical practices.
The evidence you find interesting has other possible explanations, I am afraid.
pmoran:
The first quote was in response to a poster who consistently characterizes his opponents as morons, nutters, etc, and even proclaimed me a nazi. In that context, it is better that the poster thinks of me as having a differing opinion than that I’m involved in fascist war crimes.
But I agree that differing opinions hold different weight.
One attack on homeopathy is the idea that water has memory. What is not told is that this is not an explanation, but speculation. We don’t vilify Richard Dawkins who speculated that kindness to strangers is the result of a misfiring of the brain. However it would be easy to lampoon him for such a statement, although unfair and irrational to do so.
Current views on homeopathy derive from physicians who have been trained on the use of pharmaceutical products as well as from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Do we accept a GM engineer’s views on the safety features of a Ford F150?
The wealth of knowledge against homeopathy is riddled with problems. One remedy given to a large group of subjects with a similar ailment is a formula for failure. If scientists were serious about testing homeopathy justly, they would follow RD’s lead and allow homeopaths to select the appropriate remedy for each individual in a group. To date, homeopaths are not even involved.
Interestingly enough, the concept of treating different patients with individualized therapies within the same clinical trial already exists. In gene therapy studies, subjects are given remedies based on their own personal genetic makeup. The studies, for the most part, are testing the platform for delivery and the technology behind the identification, isolation and development of each biological drug rather than the specific drug itself. In homeopathy, much like gene therapy, treatments are given based on the disease/disorder as well as the patient’s individual needs instead of the traditional “one application one drug” pharmaceutical approach. So, for there to be an effective clinical trial, homeopathy would need to be tested in a similar fashion as DNA/genetic biologics since a system is being tested, not a specific formulation of a specific drug.
Libby, rather than trying to “argue” with you further, I’m just calling you an ignorant moron.
By the way, my actual comment was:
Quick, find an irrelevant quote from Noam Chomsky! Criticize my spelling! Cite some flawed literature and ignore anything contradictory! Hyperfocus on an irrelevant tangent! ANYTHING TO AVOID A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION!!!!
Let’s also observe that “opinion” is completely irrelevant here. An “opinion” that homeopathy is anything more than an elaborate placebo is pretty much equivalent to an “opinion” that a dropped rock will fall up. These are questions of well-established FACT, not opinion.
I consider this a personal victory that the only response to my post criticizing the methodology used by conventional studies on homeopathy are:
1) Liddy is an ignorant moron,
2) an opinion is not a fact,
3) homeopathy is a placebo.
Explanation:
1) Presumably the author is making a distinction between a knowledgeable moron and an ignorant one. This likely needs some explanation.
In any case, the I.Q. of a moron is 50-69, an imbecile is 20-49, and an idiot is below 20. A rating of 60-70 heads the class, defined as borderline deficiency. Although it is possible that I am a moron, there is no scientific, or otherwise, basis for such a statement. If it were true that I sit below normal re intelligence, it’s hard to imagine why the other classifications were not considered.
2) Even a child’s dictionary will define opinions and facts as different things. It is not certain what defining simple words has to do with anything on a science board.
3) This statement sits at top of the class in relation to numbers 1 & 2. However, saying homeopathy is a placebo is like saying conventional medicine is a drug.
Aside from the semantic shortcomings, the author proceeds to opine (interestingly contradictory since he is already committed to the idea that opinions are suspect) that an opinion that rocks fall up is equivalent to an opinion that homeopathy is effectual. However there have been over 100 unbiased studies on homeopathy in various evidence-based medical journals over several decades, and not one study anywhere in the scientific literature in any field on the idea that rocks fall up.
Clearly, as pmoran has stated, not “all opinions are equally valid”.
I like that you’ve chosen option 4, “Hyperfocus on an irrelevant tangent”. Solid choice. I particularly like how you’re citing the dictionary. Definitely a good way of conveniently ignoring the actual substantive points you’ve dodged. A nice addition is your apparent concession that homeopathy is a placebo, as if you were being reasonable rather than dogmatic. The fact that it essentially undercuts your points seems lost on you, but I think we’ve come to expect that.
By the way, I’m using the term “moron” in an insulting, colloquial, pejorative way, not according to the obsolete medical definition. I actually specifically said “ignorant moron” and if we’re playing with dictionaries then I concede that “ignorant” is more technically correct. I suggest you focus on that instead. Your diction and spelling suggest that your IQ isn’t terminally low, but certainly your failure to grasp, or even be aware of, principles of science backs up the ignorance part. You may want to look up Prometheus’ “arrogance of ignorance post. Your failure to respond to criticisms in reasoning, citation of and flawed grasp of specific facts, and even overall lack of knowledge about the topic you are defending, is both crippling and telling. You don’t seem to understand science, and why homeopathy can, in a flawed test, appear to pass scientific scrutiny. If we’re still comparing to rocks falling up, homeopathy passes scientific test as a medical treatment the same way someone standing on their head can claim rocks fall up.
You can claim this as a personal victory, but as you point out – opinions are not facts. What actually happened is you failed to grasp any of the criticisms aimed at your arguments. For instance, I never stated that homeopathy doesn’t “work”. I said in my comment dated 08 Jul 2011 at 9:30 that it works as a placebo due to its many placebo-enhancing features (getting a pill; elaborate ritual; lengthy consultation; practitioner confidence) and the numerous types of special pleading available to explain away failure (it gets worse before it gets better, until it doesn’t; it was the wrong type; you used the wrong system) until the patient either heals naturally or dies.
If you want criticisms of specific studies, then here are the appropriate conditions for a test of homeopathy. Problems with any of the following indicates the test can not be regarded as reliable, particularly given publication bias:
a) establish test conditions – what type of homeopathy, what type of condition, what constitutes success
b) adequate blinding – the homeopath and patient do not know if they are getting “true” preparations (both placebo and control groups are treated identically but the preparations are dispensed by a machine)
c) adequate number of recipients
d) adequate randomization
e) equivalent drop-out rates
f) no “fishing” – that is, no multiple comparisons and claiming any significant result as a measure of success
Some other points:
a) flaws in the current medical system and pharmaceutical approval mechanisms do not mean homeopathy works (know as an ad hominem
b) personal experience is not a rational means of deciding between medical choices without a blinded challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge protocol
c) ignoring an argument doesn’t make it go away
d) if homeopathy “passes” a single test but fails several others, you don’t get to cherry pick the results you like (see, for instance, this comment)
e) when someone tries, and fails to have a rational discussion with you and starts calling you an ignorant moron, that doesn’t mean you win; in this case, it means they’ve recognized the futility of arguing with you and have decided to approach things in a more entertaining way
This last point is particularly crucial – I don’t argue with ignorant morons like you and Thing (to whom I will add the word “deluded”) to try to convince you; you’re a lost cause and I can only hope the genes that make you susceptible to magical thinking are extinguished to the betterment of mankind. I do it to demonstrate that your arguments are flawed. I’ve gotten well past the point of dealing with your attempts at substance, at this point I just don’t want anyone to think you getting the last word means you’ve said something valid. You haven’t.
By the way, you spelled your username wrong. It’s “libby” with two “b”s.
Also, to keep this on topic, vaccination works.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge:
My apologies for not reading your post after the 1st sentence.
Realizing that it continued with the same tenor as others you have written, the only aspect that remains consistent, this and future posts are are of no further interest to me.
libby is also an off-topic troll. Trolls tend to starve if you don’t feed them. Please ignore her unless she contributes to the discussion by addressing the following questions that she seems has so far dodged:
So how would homeopathy work for pertussis?
And how is Viera Schreibner ethical?
libby, do you know who Viera is? Prove it by telling us what her doctorate degree is in, and how it pertains to vaccines.