Many Doctors Are Trained By Big Pharma

[purple]

Speaking of the flu vaccine, my massage therapist told me today a client came in who had lost all of her hair, she said that it fell out within a week of receiving the flu vaccine. I have never heard of such a thing, has anyone else?

Here is a link on hair loss:

Open Original Shared Link

[purple]

Because that statement could have a deadly outcome by it's implication. Hence, a parent deserves to have documented sources to make an informed decision regarding a vaccine or a deadly disease. The topic still generates much debate. This is serious stuff.

As you know, many assumptions are assumed to be factual here. I would think this topic should be 100% fact, every time.

Here are a few good links to read:

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

[Lisa]

Open Original Shared Link

"All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice. "

The above disclaimer was found on this link that I have noted. As appropriate, it claims to be the "opinion" of the author.

And the mercola link:

"Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional"

Purple, I am not disputing the pros and cons of vaccines.

[Jestgar]

Jestgar, as a moderator, surely you know that we aren't allowed to have links in our sig...

Rule number 2:

# Do not promote your own business, Web site or products--even if they offer free services. The proper place to post your Web site, business or other services is in your profile, not in your signature block or in posts.

Non self-promotional links are fine.

[Jestgar]

Here are a few good links to read:

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

None of these list their references. It's perfectly fine to cite them as your source, but my personal response to looking at them is 'these are crap'. It colors how much validity I would give your statements.

[Jestgar]

The fact that vaccines CAN cause death is something that I was NEVER, EVER told, either in person or in writing from the pediatrician or from the hospital, not once in the more than 60 vaccines my 3 children were given (2 were given 26 each, one was given 10). But I've been told plenty of times that they CAN'T cause autism, even though some court cases have already decided that it has, as in the case of Hannah Poling:

Open Original Shared Link

I'm sorry that this was your experience, and I applaud you for taking you time and energy to spread what you've learned. All I ask is that you list your sources so that you've given others a place to start their own research.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

I'm sorry that this was your experience, and I applaud you for taking you time and energy to spread what you've learned. All I ask is that you list your sources so that you've given others a place to start their own research.

Fair enough!

I just wish that others would list their sources when they write things like "{saying that vaccines can harm or kill" can have a deadly outcome by its implication!"

Incidentally, this appeared in yesterday's "USA Today" : Open Original Shared Link

[Jestgar]

Fair enough!

I just wish that others would list their sources when they write things like "{saying that vaccines can harm or kill" can have a deadly outcome by its implication!"

Incidentally, this appeared in yesterday's "USA Today" : Open Original Shared Link

You can always ask them for it. In fact, I hope you do. It benefits everyone to know that people are posting something they've researched, as opposed to something they've heard.

[rinne]

Here is a link on hair loss:

Open Original Shared Link

Thanks for the link.

....It's perfectly fine to cite them as your source, but my personal response to looking at them is 'these are crap'. ......

That is precisely how I feel but I feel that way about big pharma's propaganda.

[Jestgar]

That is precisely how I feel but I feel that way about big pharma's propaganda.

Well, I certainly wouldn't argue that point. Anyone that wants to sell you something takes great pains to make it look good. I think that you should use a company's literature for what something is supposed to do, but then look at many different sources to find out what else it does.

I also consider that people are more likely to speak up when they've had a bad experience, so I don't assume that a product is all bad, just because that's all I've seen. I do, however, consider the risks to myself if I should experience an adverse event, and weigh that against the benefits.

[psawyer]

We need to take responsibility for our own health because doctors are not trained in health they are trained in prescibing medications (often quite lethal) that keep drug companies wealthy but keep people quite sick.

"Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too." Chekhov.

Remember when this topic, which is in the "Doctors" section of the board, actually was talking about doctors?

[ravenwoodglass]

Remember when this topic, which is in the "Doctors" section of the board, actually was talking about doctors?

Sure do, but then the title changed and the Pharm aspect started to blossom fully.

[tarnalberry]

So, how many people here actually read the PI for a drug they take before they take it?

(Yes, this is a leading question, and I'll be back to follow up!)

[Jestgar]

So, how many people here actually read the PI for a drug they take before they take it?

(Yes, this is a leading question, and I'll be back to follow up!)

hmm. I question the doc, make sure s/he thinks it's really necessary. I read the company provided literature on the web. Search for adverse reactions from other users. Only if I am completely convinced that it's the right choice will I go buy it.

There ain't nothin going into my body that doesn't need to.

[purple]

None of these list their references. It's perfectly fine to cite them as your source, but my personal response to looking at them is 'these are crap'. It colors how much validity I would give your statements.

So help me understand this. Please correct me where I am wrong. Thanks!

You have spent alot of time researching health and know many sites that are based on facts or opinions. How I am I to know if the sites are facts or their opinions? I am a bit confused on this. If they list references, how am I to know if the references are someones facts or opinons? See my confusion? The authors of many links have spent years researching their info just like many on this site have, like Rachel for instance. (I miss you RacheL!)

How do you know they are fact or not? Do their references come from other doctors, experience, Big Pharma, books someone wrote, ancient Chinese medicine, trial and error, others opinions, history, experiments on human guinea pigs, testing on the poor, babies, the holocaust victims, or the military, etc, etc?

Do you know who big Pharma is/are? And who is in control of what they teach? Is it fact or opinion? Do you know who is in control of Big Pharma?

I guess my question is this: How do I know who is telling the truth? How do you/anyone know?

IHMO, not fact, IF SOME doctors are paid by big pharma to sell their drugs (and there are links to show, not prove this, like big pharma would tell the truth IMO) how come people have gotten worse or died after vaccinations, wrong treatment, wrong diagnosis...IMO. But from what I understand I am to post links that are fact when nobody knows if its fact or not. Do you see my confusion on this?

As you stated above...How do I know your your staements are valid and if your references are fact or opinion? Based on what to prove it? Do you get what I am trying to understand?

IMO I think we should just post our references and hopefully everyone can research the topic more on their own and make their own decisions based on what they learn and their own circumstances. Time would be used more wisely instead of debating if its fact or opinion.

[sbj]

Wow! Getting philosophical now!

I have often found the following source to be helpful when trying to sort internet truth from fiction:

Open Original Shared Link

It's fun to read, too.

I should think that it's pretty obvious what jestgar is trying to say: there's a lot of obvious garbage out there and plenty of people trafficking in conspiracy theories that are based on nothing more than opinion.

[purple]

"All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice. "

The above disclaimer was found on this link that I have noted. As appropriate, it claims to be the "opinion" of the author.

And the mercola link:

"Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional"

Purple, I am not disputing the pros and cons of vaccines.

IMO, the doctors (natural) that are really tring to help us, have to have a disclaimer, b/c the government or whomever regulates the medical field can't make any money on natural healing. So the "old fashioned" way of healing doesn't work according to those in charge. IMO, they are out for money and if we are not sick they won't get any. Natural healing does work, (maybe not in all cases, we do need doctors sometimes) it has for thousands of years. I would trust a good natural doc before an MD anyday but that is just my opinion based on my research and experiences and with people I know.

[Jestgar]

I guess my question is this: How do I know who is telling the truth? How do you/anyone know?

IHMO, not fact, IF SOME doctors are paid by big pharma to sell their drugs (and there are links to show, not prove this, like big pharma would tell the truth IMO) how come people have gotten worse or died after vaccinations, wrong treatment, wrong diagnosis...IMO. But from what I understand I am to post links that are fact when nobody knows if its fact or not. Do you see my confusion on this?

As you stated above...How do I know your your staements are valid and if your references are fact or opinion? Based on what to prove it? Do you get what I am trying to understand?

You can't know if anyone's information is fact based, or made up on the spot. If a site, however, lists its sources, you at least have the opportunity to investigate further, and form an opinion based on multiple sources.

Since it's what I do, I actually trace back information to the original studies, look at the results, and decide if I draw the same conclusion as the authors. If a site doesn't tell me their sources, I assume it's because they don't want me to do that, and if they don't, I assume it's because their conclusions, or interpretations of the data would not stand up to scrutiny. Or there are no studies.

It doesn't matter how much time you've spent researching something, if all of your conclusions are based on someone else's unsupported opinion.

[JNBunnie1]

You can't know if anyone's information is fact based, or made up on the spot. If a site, however, lists its sources, you at least have the opportunity to investigate further, and form an opinion based on multiple sources.

Since it's what I do, I actually trace back information to the original studies, look at the results, and decide if I draw the same conclusion as the authors. If a site doesn't tell me their sources, I assume it's because they don't want me to do that, and if they don't, I assume it's because their conclusions, or interpretations of the data would not stand up to scrutiny. Or there are no studies.

It doesn't matter how much time you've spent researching something, if all of your conclusions are based on someone else's unsupported opinion.

Yeah, but how much credence do you give to all these 'studies'? I mean, Galileo did a 'study' that told him the earth was round and they stoned him for it. The people who step out on a limb in the medical arena are regularly treated the same way, with cries of 'heretic' and 'quack'. People are discouraged by doctors from taking herbal medicines that have been proven safer than their drugs over thousands of years of use, but 'scientists' will tell you that if there's no studies done to prove it, don't take it. I have a great deal of trouble putting faith in studies, they're used as a double edged sword and far too frequently the data is massaged to support whatever they set out to do in the first place. Studies need funding, and are far too easily bought. The first thing I do with any study is look at the funding. Guess who funded the original Vioxx studies?

[JNBunnie1]

Yeah, but how much credence do you give to all these 'studies'? I mean, Galileo did a 'study' that told him the earth was round and they stoned him for it. The people who step out on a limb in the medical arena are regularly treated the same way, with cries of 'heretic' and 'quack'. People are discouraged by doctors from taking herbal medicines that have been proven safer than their drugs over thousands of years of use, but 'scientists' will tell you that if there's no studies done to prove it, don't take it. I have a great deal of trouble putting faith in studies, they're used as a double edged sword and far too frequently the data is massaged to support whatever they set out to do in the first place. Studies need funding, and are far too easily bought. The first thing I do with any study is look at the funding. Guess who funded the original Vioxx studies?

Example:

Open Original Shared Link

[rinne]

We don't know what we are doing in medicine. Perhaps one quarter to one third of medical services may be of little to no benefit to patients. Dr. David Eddy, Director, Duke University Health Policy Research quoted in Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives.

I appreciate that doctor being so forthright, I wish I had encountered doctors so willing to be open minded about the limitations of their practice instead I was too often met with arrogance and ignorance.

I recall seeing a doctor many years ago, I had a number of questions and since she was leaving the province, I asked her to recommend a doctor, she said, "I think you will find it difficult to find a doctor." When I asked her why, she said, "you seem to want to have a lot of control over your health."

Still do and I am utterly convinced that the reason my health is improving is because I took charge of it. I haven't been to a doctor for over two years and if I ever go to see a doctor again it will be as it was before, purely to answer my questions. I don't look to doctors for health, I mean really, most of the ones I see are overweight and look pasty.

I saw a fascinating program a few years ago about how modern medicine developed out of battlefield surgeries. It showed the effect the Napoleonic wars had on this and the absolute compliance of patients because of course they were good soldiers. Doctors are trained to expect obedience, in my opinion until that changes nothing else will.

[Jestgar]

Yeah, but how much credence do you give to all these 'studies'? I mean, Galileo did a 'study' that told him the earth was round and they stoned him for it. The people who step out on a limb in the medical arena are regularly treated the same way, with cries of 'heretic' and 'quack'. People are discouraged by doctors from taking herbal medicines that have been proven safer than their drugs over thousands of years of use, but 'scientists' will tell you that if there's no studies done to prove it, don't take it. I have a great deal of trouble putting faith in studies, they're used as a double edged sword and far too frequently the data is massaged to support whatever they set out to do in the first place. Studies need funding, and are far too easily bought. The first thing I do with any study is look at the funding. Guess who funded the original Vioxx studies?

Although it has been stated on this site (without references) that someone is unable to publish studies that are contrary to current thinking, this is not true. No, I can't prove this, but it's the business I'm in, and I know it. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journals. Anyone can publish anything. Period. There are also internet "journals" that would allow you to publish your data within weeks, for free.

I go to 4-5 conferences a week for residents and fellows. Naturopathic medicines are never discussed as inappropriate. Rather, those that have interactions with specific medicines, affects on organ systems, affects on lab tests, etc. are discussed, so that the up and coming MDs are aware.

My personal physicians have never discouraged any naturopathic drugs. One even "prescribed" fish oil.

The data are almost never "massaged". If you go to the original study, and look at the data, you get the right answer. What are "massaged" are the interpretations.

Also, the media choose which results to sensationalize. I have seen studies that show that the death rate in patients with know heart disease is very high for one particular drug. Which drug? Ibuprofen. Almost the same as Vioxx. Did you hear about that? Has Ibuprofen been pulled off the market? Nope. Nobody to vilify. Not "news".

You are believing someone, because most people come down on one side, or the other, of an argument. So ask yourself, why have you chosen to believe in your side? What did they do that was so much more credible in your mind? Because some untraceable child's story appeared somewhere? Because someone on an internet site told you it was true? What are your criteria for truth?

And my response to Rinne: Your health should have always been in your control, and you should always fire a physician that doesn't accept that. As was recently pointed out, there are good and bad doctors. Stick with the good ones.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Although it has been stated on this site (without references) that someone is unable to publish studies that are contrary to current thinking, this is not true. No, I can't prove this, but it's the business I'm in, and I know it. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journals. Anyone can publish anything. Period. There are also internet "journals" that would allow you to publish your data within weeks, for free.

That's not entirely true. If your study was funded by a company (like a pharmaceutical company) or by a university (like a medical school), your data belongs to THEM, and you are not permitted to publish it without their consent. So, if your results don't match what they are hoping for, those results are buried, and you are basically gagged from even discussing them.

The scientists I know say that there is a lot of power play going on in the science world; if you don't know how to play the game (in other words, if you just trumpet the truth along with compelling proof, and that truth happens to tick off anyone in power, like the pharm industry), you are dealt with immediately, unethically, and severely.

Very few are willing to risk it.

The doctors I know socially are taught in continuing medical education by the pharmaceutical industry, or by pharm-trained/employed doctors.

This isn't ALWAYS bad. I went to see our doctor several years ago after a long bout of bronchitis (after having the flu right after having had the flu shot). Two weeks before, his partner had told me that I would have to go on antibiotics if I didn't shake it in two weeks. However, on that next visit, the doctor I saw told me he had just come from a conference where bronchitis was discussed, and that the latest studies indicated that this kind of long-term bronchospasm was not, in fact, a bacterial infection, but chronic irritation caused by the act of coughing itself. The proposed cure--an inhaler (albuterol). One puff and the vicious cycle was broken.

So he saved me from 10 days of a useless antibiotic along with unwanted side effects.

But still, nearly all of the education of the average family practice physician is about which drugs to administer.

Why don't pediatricians routinely order a blood test to determine immunity status before administering a second MMR? (And I still want to know why Merck's website said 4 years ago that one shot conferred lifelong immunity to 95%--and now it's not on their website...)

[Jestgar]

That's not entirely true. If your study was funded by a company (like a pharmaceutical company) or by a university (like a medical school), your data belongs to THEM, and you are not permitted to publish it without their consent. So, if your results don't match what they are hoping for, those results are buried, and you are basically gagged from even discussing them.

I was approaching this from the independent researcher being unable to publish. It is true that whoever pays the bills, holds the data. However, I have never heard of a medical school, or a university funding research. They can't really afford it.

The scientists I know say that there is a lot of power play going on in the science world; if you don't know how to play the game (in other words, if you just trumpet the truth along with compelling proof, and that truth happens to tick off anyone in power, like the pharm industry), you are dealt with immediately, unethically, and severely.

This has not been my experience. You can publish anywhere. It is true that having a known name in the list of authors gets you easier access to the journals (like Nature), but even without a big name you can get published, if your data are good enough.

The doctors I know socially are taught in continuing medical education by the pharmaceutical industry, or by pharm-trained/employed doctors.

There is plenty of non-pharm sponsored education.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

30 seconds of googling found those. The medical journals also offer CMEs for participating in their diagnostic surveys and polls.

Why don't pediatricians routinely order a blood test to determine immunity status before administering a second MMR?

Why not ask them for it? It's easier, and quicker just to give a second shot. For most people it's not a big deal.

[Darn210]

Why don't pediatricians routinely order a blood test to determine immunity status before administering a second MMR?

Why not ask them for it? It's easier, and quicker just to give a second shot. For most people it's not a big deal.

It never dawned on me to check for immunity with a blood test and I think it's a great option for those who want to reduce the number of vaccinations. I will say, having gone through multiple blood draws and shots with both of my kids within the last two years, the shots were far less tramatic and the blood draws (especially for my son) caused hysteria.