November 4th, 2010 by David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Anti-Vaccine, Anti-Vaccine Movement, Anti-Vaccine Propaganda, Anti-Vaccine Quackery, Dr. David Gorski, Epidemiology, immunizations, Immunology, Medical Conspiracy Mongering, Misrepresentation of Vaccine Science, Public Awareness, Public Health, Public Knowledge, SBM, Science Based Medicine, Science-Based Evidence, Shots, Vaccine Controversy, Vaccine Education, Vaccine Efficiency
No Comments »
We write a lot about vaccines here at Science-Based Medicine. Indeed, as I write this, I note that there are 155 posts under the Vaccines category, with this post to make it 156. This is third only to Science and Medicine (which is such a vague, generic category that I’ve been seriously tempted to get rid of it, anyway) and Science and the Media.
There is no doubt that vaccines represent one of the most common topics that we cover here on SBM, and with good reason. That good reason is that, compared to virtually any other modality used in the world of SBM, vaccines are under the most persistent attack from a vocal group of people, who, either because they mistakenly believe that vaccines caused their children’s autism, because they don’t like being told what to do by The Man, because they think that “natural” is always better to the point of thinking that it’s better to get a vaccine-preventable disease in order to achieve immunity than to vaccinate against it, or because a combination of some or all of the above plus other reasons, are anti-vaccine.
“Anti-vaccine.” We regularly throw that word around here at SBM — and, most of the time, with good reason. Many skeptics and defenders of SBM also throw that word around, again with good reason most of the time. There really is a shocking amount of anti-vaccine sentiment out there. But what does “anti-vaccine” really mean? What is “anti-vaccine?” Who is “anti-vaccine?”
Given that this is my first post for SBM’s self-declared Vaccine Awareness Week, proposed to counter Barbara Loe Fisher’s National Vaccine Information Center’s and Joe Mercola’s proposal that November 1-6 be designated “Vaccine Awareness Week” for the purpose of posting all sorts of pseudoscience and misinformation about “vaccine injury” and how dangerous vaccines supposedly are, we decided to try to co-opt the concept for the purpose of countering the pseudoscience promoted by the anti-vaccine movement. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
November 3rd, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
Tags: American Cancer Society, Blood Tests, Cancer Screening, Colonoscopy, Complications of Screening Tests, Disease Mongering, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, Evidence and Harm, Gary Schwitzer, Genetics, Harms of Screening Tests, Health Journalism, HealthDay, HealthNewsReview.org, Inaccurate Health Reporting, Lack of Scientific Medical Evidence, Nature, Pancreas, Pancreatic Cancer, Potential Benefits of Screening Tests, Responsible Reporting, Screening Tests, Ultrasound, Upper-Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
No Comments »
Continuing this week’s spontaneous theme (we didn’t make the claims and write the stories) of runaway enthusiasm for various screening tests by some researchers and journalists, HealthDay news service has reported on a study published in the Oct. 28 issue of the journal Nature that they say “provides new insight into the genetics of pancreatic cancer.” In the story, they let one of the researchers get away with saying, almost unchallenged:
“What’s important about this study is that it’s objective data in support of why everyone should be screened for pancreatic cancer.”
Mind you, this was a study that looked at tissue from just seven patients. The story continued with its breathless enthusiasm for the pancreatic cancer screening idea:
“In the future, new imaging techniques and blood tests will offer hope for early detection, the study noted. And just as people have a colonoscopy when they turn 50, “perhaps they should have an endoscopy of their upper gastrointestinal organs that includes an ultrasound of the pancreas,” said (the researcher).”
The very end of the story included some skepticism from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
November 3rd, 2010 by AndrewSchorr in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News, Opinion, Research, True Stories
Tags: Advanced Breast Cancer, Andrew Schorr, Cancer, Clinical Research, Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Considering a Clinical Trial, Corengi.com, Empowering Patients, Encouraging Clinical Trial Enrollment, Human Clinical Trials, Human Subject Research, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Oncology, Participating in Medical Research, Patient Power, Ryan Luce, Type 2 Diabetes
No Comments »
About 10 days ago I appeared in Phoenix as a speaker at a regional education seminar put on by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. My topic was sharing my experience as a participant in a clinical trial. I was delighted to do so, as I feel that trial saved my life and restored me to good health.
I am hoping my words encouraged others to consider being in a trial. There are no guarantees of the result, but trials are always worth considering. Unfortunately, few patients do. That may limit their choices and certainly holds back research that could help others. What a shame.
Clinical trials are defined as human subject research. It is through these trials that we determine if new drugs or devices can better serve patients than what is currently available. Clinical trials are available for almost every disease — although finding these trials can be challenging. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Andrew's Blog*
November 2nd, 2010 by StevenWilkinsMPH in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Research
Tags: Annals Of Internal Medicine, General Medicine, Healthcare Social Media, Mind The Gap, Online Support Groups, Peer Support, Social Media Advocates, Social Media and Personal Support, Social Media In Medicine, Social Networking For Patients, Steven Wilkins MPH
No Comments »
Over the last year or two, lots of people have been jumping on the social media bandwagon, i.e., Twitter, Facebook, and so on. There has been a lot of talk about how social media and social networking will revolutionize healthcare, but little evidence to back this talk up. Until now, that is.
Before I get to the evidence that I referred to, I need to clarify something. The goal of social media as I understand it is to get people talking, sharing information and creating new ideas. As applied to healthcare, one of the goals of social media is to get people/patients with like medical conditions taking, sharing and supporting one another. Healthcare researchers refer to this phenomenon as peer support. Peer support is not new to healthcare. Disease-specific support groups (breast cancer, diabetes, etc.) have been around for years. “Group” physician office visits comprised of patients with the same diagnosis have been around for years as well.
The Study
Now to the evidence. As anyone with a chronic condition or who treats patient with chronic conditions knows, patient self-care is critical. Knowledge, skills and confidence are prerequisites for effective self-care management. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Mind The Gap*
November 2nd, 2010 by Jennifer Shine Dyer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Data Interpretation, Determinants of Health, Dr. Jennifer Shine Dyer, Factors to Health, General Medicine, Health MacDonald, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Politics, Healthcare reform, Historical Intepretation, Individual Health Behaviors, Miasmaticians, Perceptions of Health, Public Health Pioneers, Public Health Quackery, Science Based Medicine, Socioeconomics, Traditional Science, What Determines Health, When Health Loses
No Comments »
I recently read an article by Heather MacDonald entitled “Public Health Quackery” that has not left my thoughts since. The truth in regards to what determines health is being argued in the article.
At the heart of the article, MacDonald seeks to contrast the traditional science approach with the miasmatician approach to the fundamental question of the role of individual behaviors vs. socioeconomics on the determinants of health. MacDonald summarizes the miasmaticians’ beliefs of health determinants as being exclusively influenced by socioeconomics thereby dismissing any and all influences on health by individual behaviors.
Her primary argument in favor of the traditional science belief in individual behaviors as determinants of health is as follows: Traditional science bases assumptions of truth on data that is valid by scientific standards vs. miasmaticians’ assumptions of truth from biased, “flimsy” data. In other words, “quacky” ideas come from “quacky” data thus are not likely to be true. Read more »
