Recently, I've been thinking about science in society : Is it pervasive? Is it largely misunderstood? Are people dispensing science and medical information when they're not equipped to do so? Is it confusing out there for someone who is looking for good information?
I think the answer to all four of these questions is: Yes.
Two things lately have raised red flags for me, in relation to these thoughts. The first is Bill Maher's ignorant claims about vaccinations, and the second is a viewing of Under the Eightball, a documentary about Lyme disease and bioterrorism, which I attended last night in Cambridge.
In both cases, emotion, politics and idealogy (and in both cases, a healthy dose of conspiracy theory) have clouded bias-free information and facts, and have prevented a logical assessment of these information and facts.
Bill Maher (a clip of his interview with Dr. Bill Frist can be found on You Tube, his recent twitter post was: If u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot.), in going against the CDC, the NIH, leading scientists and doctors, and over 200 years of successful vaccinations and eradication of many diseases, sounds like the type of lunatics he regularly mocks in his stand-up routines. Would there really be a vast conspiracy among these esteemed professionals to cover up data showing vaccines are harmful, or that the side-effects outweigh the health protections? It just doesn't make sense.
Doctors and researchers (I would frame this as at least 99.9% of them) are ethical and constantly weeding through data to find the most accurate and up-to date information. If someone had made a concrete link between vaccinations and any ill-effects (or indeed, a link suggesting vaccinations are not effective), the scientific community would immediately consider this - and they would communicate this to the public too. That's the way science works - the best ideas float to the top, and the people with the best ideas are eager to share these findings.
Most worrisome, is that some people are not sure who to believe - as an entertainer with a public platform, Maher may make convincing arguments to some, and doctors or scientists may be quieter or less eloquent. However, the proof lies in the statistics. This CDC website links to a list of the diseases currently preventable by childhood vaccinations (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/child-vpd.htm) , and the Journal of the American Medical Association (one of the top medical journals in the world; Roush et al, 2007, Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States) provides a meta-analysis showing an overall decreasing trend for ten diseases, since vaccinations for them began.
However, rates of polio for example (erradicated in 1968), could be on the rise due to scare-tactics preventing vaccinations. It seems so simple to make a smart health decision and have your children vaccinated for childhood diseases, and yourself vaccinated for the seasonal flu.
Most of these findings are from government funded research. And if you're a conspiracy theorist, that alone may garner your distrust. Add on top of that the availability of 'information' on the web to support any side of any argument, enabling people coming from uninformed angles, and the water is inevitably muddied.
Vaccines, including the seasonal flu vaccine, ARE effective. No trustworthy doctor or scientist would tell you otherwise. Each year they are created based on which viruses are most likely to be infecting people - and yes, this does create profit for pharmaceutical companies. But correlation between profit and a medical device, does not deem that medical device ineffective.
During the time of the cholera epidemic, people believed Miasmas - or bad air - carried disease (and that bad smells would make you sick). This was before the germ-theory of disease, the indisputable evidence that bacteria and viruses make us sick, not foul odors. Parallels can be drawn between this period of history and the current debate over vaccinations - but by arming yourself with trustworthy information you can find yourself on the right side of history - and healthier to boot.
More on Under the Eightball, next time!


Salon.com
Comments
BTW, a vaccine is a biological drug. A "medical device" is a very different category. Science folk should use accurate terminology, doncha' think?
Kelly, thanks for your comments also - a blog is a forum for discussion after all! Happy to address your concerns.
I agree that time-tested vaccines for childhood illness are different than a voluntary seasonal (annual) flu vaccination. But you're wrong that the technology is new, and it is certainly not rushed to market in under a year. Flu vaccines have been created in the same manner since their inception (the technology dates from the 1950's), its just the strains that are most likely to infect that year that are different. Therefore, there is no new safety risk each year.
A drug is a device - plain and simple. Dictionaries define a device as: a piece of equipment or a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function - drugs are a chemical version of this. I agree terminology should be used accurately, but lay terms like device are often used in many different connotations.
Lastly, I do agree that with certain vaccines, like the flu vaccine, people should weigh options for themselves. Those in the very small percentage of people who are sensitive to the shot, such as those with an allergy to eggs, should certainly determine if they are in a category at high risk for complications from influenza (and this should be in consultation with a medical professional - not a talk show host, or a blogger!).
As a professional in the field of regulating and manufacturing drugs and devices, I just want to be clear that a drug is not a chemical device in the eyes of the law (or the manufaturers). There are chemicals that are medical devices, but those are not drugs. There's no reason to confuse the lay person when the scientific terminology is well-defined and even logical.
I wonder, do you have a young daughter and will you be injecting her with Gardisil when she turns 11 or 12?
Additionally, this article was SPECIFICALLY not about H1N1 - I only mention vaccines for childhood diseases and seasonal flu - I have not done enough reading on H1N1 to make any claims about it, and plenty others are writing about it very well (such as AmyTuteurMD).
Finally, I will never make any personal comments on this blog. I, unlike many people who do blog, am not on here to talk about my personal life. My hope is to bring interest and awareness, as well as discussion, to scientific topics. Am happy to discuss Science with you anytime!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/health/16vaccine.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks very much for your calm and logical comment! I agree that calmness and logic (in addition to factual information, as you point out) are key components of a scientific discussion. That is the tone I am striving to achieve on this blog. Hope you'll stay tuned.