Aliquot

A portion of science, at all intersections.

aliquot

aliquot
Location
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Birthday
December 31
Title
Dr.
Bio
Neuroscience Ph.D. ************************** Passionate about science education and outreach; enjoys a great discussion about the intersection of science and everyday life *************************** Currently a biomedical researcher at a Harvard University hospital - Areas of expertise: endocrinology, appetite and metabolism, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology *************************** Areas of interest: science and art, science and society, science policy, books/films/music, reading great magazines, travel, learning new things and sparking new ideas, gardening/nature *** All Content Copyright Aliquot - do not reproduce without express permission ***

Aliquot's Links

Recommended links: Science Education
Recommended links: General Science Resources
Recommended: Science and Society
Aliquot Posts: Earth and Environment
Aliquot's Favorite OS Science Posts by other bloggers
Aliquot posts: Read, Watch, Visit, Do, Browse
Aliquot posts: Wacky Science of the Month
Aliquot posts: Only Human?
Quick Links - Aliquot
Aliquot posts: current research and science resources
Aliquot posts: reviews (movies, books, websites, etc)
Aliquot posts: science and pseudoscience
Aliquot posts: Science and health, science and food
Aliquot posts: science and art
Aliquot Posts: Science Policy and Science in Society
Aliquot posts: basic science
Recommended links: Science And Art
OCTOBER 14, 2009 4:45PM

Who to believe when good science and bad information collide

Rate: 4 Flag

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!

 

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
There is a vast difference between a polio vaccine that has been manufactured for 40 years, and a brand new vaccine rushed to market in under a year. Everyone should weigh the risks and benefits of a flu vaccine for themselves. Most doctors do not even know how to report an adverse reaction if they see one, so stats from the general public after approval of a new drug (that has been approved based on extremely limited clinical trials) are unreliable.

BTW, a vaccine is a biological drug. A "medical device" is a very different category. Science folk should use accurate terminology, doncha' think?
Thanks, Amy!

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!).
Thanks, Sao Kay - I think you raise important issues that are of great concern to scientists as well. The majority (vast majority, I should say) of scientists I interact with are also concerned about the effects of ANY outside influence on their pursuit of knowledge. The scientific community must strive to maintain high ethical standards, transparency, and communication not only of experimental findings, but also the methods used to obtain them (including financial or consultative input). I believe this will help alleviate the concern of the public, or at least assist people in surveying and analyzing available research findings themselves.
The new vaccines for H1N1 are being approved basely soley on the fact that the technology is the same. The virus is not. If it was, we'd just be adding it to the seasonal flu vaccine. There is not a single safety or efficacy study for this new drug product. Too many years of experience in device and drug manufacturing makes me wary. There are far more potential side effects that you've listed; never mind the possibility of complete failure or worse. The again, all new drugs go through Phase IV trials when they are unleashed on the general population.

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?
Kellylark: While I appreciate your comments and insight on how regulatory bodies view 'device' in a manufacturing sense, in this post I was using the word in a non-technical sense. I'm not on Open Salon to write technical articles or to talk about technology - I am a scientist. But, I'm glad your comments have clarified that for any readers who are intimate with biotechnological terms and may have been confused.
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!
This is one article about the H1N1 debate from a lay publication, which I have found to be very helpful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/health/16vaccine.html?_r=1&hp
I have been disturbed by the body of myth surrounding vaccinations, too often disseminated by a group of people who otherwise side firmly with science. Risks and benefits exist; they can be discussed calmly and logically, based on factual information. Vaccines are not perfect; neither are they inherently evil. Hysteria is not a helpful addition to the discussion, and making hysteria fashionable has not been a positive contribution by people who should know better..
High Lonesome,
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.
yes, now why dont you go do some research into how many problems have been associated with problems with vaccine formulas....
vzn - vaccine formulations have only improved over the years, while rates of autism have increased. Any immunologist worth his/her salt will agree that there is no feasible link.