Being "educated" about health topic surest sign of ignorance
What does it mean to be educated in a particular discipline? Whether that discipline is architecture, anthropology, or law, being educated generally means years of study, thousands of hours of experience, and intimate acquaintance with the specialist literature.
Medicine is like that, too. It involves four years of college, four years of medical school, 3-5 years of hands on training for 80+ hours per week, countless textbooks and intimate knowledge of the relevant medical literature. No layperson is educated in medicine. The idea is simply ludicrous. Therefore, when a layperson claims to be "educated" about a particular health topic, like childbirth, or vaccination, or autism, you can be virtually assured that a stream of absolute nonsense will follow.
When a lay person claims to be "educated" about health, she certainly doesn't mean that she went to medical school, has hands on training caring for individuals with the condition, or is familiar with the specialist literature. So what does she mean? When a layperson proudly claims to be "educated" about a health topic she means that she has adopted a cultural construction of "education" that has little if anything to do with actual knowledge of the topic.
'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK explores cultural construction of being "educated." As the title indicates, the authors focus on vaccine rejectionism, but the principles apply equally to natural childbirth advocacy, autism cures, and any other form of alternative health.
When advocates of vaccine rejection or natural childbirth claim to be "educated," they are not talking about actual scientific knowledge. Indeed, the scientific data is generally ignored. The claim of being "educated" on vaccine rejection or childbirth simply stands for a refusal to agree with health professionals and refusal to trust them. Agreement with doctors is constructed as a negative and refusal to trust is constructed as a positive cultural attribute. As the authors of the paper explain:
Clear dichotomies are constructed between blind faith and active resistance and uncritical following and critical thinking. Non-vaccinators or those who question aspects of vaccination policy are not described in terms of class, gender, location or politics, but are 'free thinkers' who have escaped from the disempowerment that is seen to characterise vaccination...This characterization of vaccine rejectionists or natural childbirth advocates can be unpacked even further; not surprisingly, vaccine rejectionists and natural childbirth advocates are portrayed as laudatory and other parents are denigrated.
... instead of good and bad parent categories being a function of compliance or non-compliance with vaccination advice ... the good parent becomes one who spends the time to become informed and educated about vaccination...When a vaccine rejectionist or natural childbirth advocate claims to be "educated" on a topic they don't mean that they have any education on the topic at all. They simply mean that they are defying authority. In their world, trusting experts is a mark of credulity, while ignoring expert advice is a sign of independent thinking and self-education. But, of course, since they don't really know anything about the topic, they are inevitably forced to rely on the advice of propagandists, charlatans and quacks.
... [vaccine rejectionists] construct trust in others as passive and the easy option. Rather than trust in experts, the alternative scenario is of a parent who becomes the expert themselves, through a difficult process of personal education and empowerment...
The person who proudly claims to be "educated" on vaccination offers as proof the fact that he ignores the expert advice of pediatricians, immunologists and virologists and embraces the teachings of ... washed up Playboy Playmate Jennifer McCarthy. In their delusion, vaccine rejectionists fail to appreciate the irony. Far from being "educated," they are unbelievably credulous.
The woman who claims to be "educated" about childbirth offers as proof the fact that she ignores the advice of obstetricians and pediatricians and embraces the teachings of ... washed up talk show host Ricki Lake. Amazingly, she has no idea of how utterly foolish she sounds.
If the goal of being "educated" isn't acquiring knowledge, what is it? The ultimate goal is to become "empowered":
Finally, the moral imperative to become informed is part of a broader shift, evident in the new public health, for which some kind of empowerment, personal responsibility and participation are expressed in highly positive terms.So vaccine rejectionism, like natural childbirth, is about the mother and how she would like to see herself, not about vaccines and not about children. In the socially constructed world of vaccine rejectionists, parents are divided into those (inferior) people who are passive and blindly trust authority figures and (superior) rejectionists who are "educated" and "empowered" by taking "personal responsibility".
A lay person's claims to be "educated" about a health topic is really a claim of defiance. The person is proudly defying the recommendations of health experts with years of education and years of training in order to credulously accept the bizarre conspiracy theories of people who have little or no education and training in the relevant discipline. When a vaccine rejectionist or a natural childbirth advocate claims to be "educated," she means that she has thoroughly read and blindly accepted the propaganda of other people who are equally uneducated.
When someone tells you she is "educated" on a healthcare topic, beware! There is no surer mark of ignorance on the topic than the proud claim of being "educated."
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Esther AR
Salon.com
Comments
My spouse is a chronic pain patient, beginning at age 19, before I even knew her. In her journey through the medical system she saw something around 20 different physicians, many of them specialists. None of them offered her any narcotics. Not one of them even told her about this thing called a "pain clinic." One physician even said to her "I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do, you'll just have to live like this."
When physicians do prescribe narcotics they typically under-medicate, and when the patient asks for more they interpret this as "drug-seeking" behavior.
I think the situation has improved the last few years, but the general ignorance that many physicians have about pain management still amazes me.
Lack of knowledge of specialty pain management is one problem, but there are others that may contribute more to patient suffering. One is the policy of the DEA in filing charges against doctors who they believe "over-prescribe" pain medication. That makes some doctors reluctant to prescribe the most powerful pain medications even though they know those medications exist and they know they would be helpful.
"patients and parents trying to make some sense out of all the anecdotal info they are bombarded with by family, friends and celebrities."
My anger is directed at a number of things, among them the belief that one can be "educated" about a technical topic without doing the hard work of actually acquiring a real education; and the confusion of defiance with education.
For example, only the ignorant refuse vaccination for life threatening diseases, yet those same people are endlessly preening about how "educated" they are. It's a commentary on contemporary society that those who know the least pretend that they know the most and get away with it.
"On the spectrum of scientific articles to sensational and provocative blogging, a layperson needs guidance distinguishing fact from opinion, science from sensationalism."
At one level I agree with you; lay people do need guidance, but those who need the most guidance refuse to acknowledge that.
On another level, I'm deeply skeptical. You don't need any guidance to understand that celebrities cannot possibly know anything about vaccination. In fact, most lay people who listen to celebrities are well aware that those celebrities have no knowledge of immunology or virology. The lay people seem to agree with the celebrities that no particular knowledge is necessary.
Simply put, we've become a society where large segments proudly celebrate ignorance and call it being "educated."
"I'm suggesting laypersons use the same degree of skepticism when it comes to physicians who are publishing non-scientific articles, opinion pieces and blogs."
Absolutely. An old rule of thumb applies as always: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.
Hope you feel better soon!
And Nerdcred...
Sometimes (albeit rarely) things ARE black and white. If I eat cyanide, I WILL die. If everybody gets vaccinated against polio, we WILL wipe it out. If I throw myself at any of the ladies who write on OpenSalon, begging them to go out with me, I WILL get shot down. Sometimes, it's best to accept fact and move on.
What a true crackpot you are.
Since the anti-science claims have yet to survive serious study, I've recently encountered a position moving away from falsifiable anti-vaccine claims and targeting a "Culture of Fear" that terrorizes ignorant parents into vaccinating their children. When science doesn't support it, time to move on to ad-hominem. Witness the flap over Amy Wallace's Wired article: http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/10/when_critics_disagree_with_me.php
It's great that doctors know the science but shouldn't they also be a little bit more open to new research, relating to non-traditional therapies, that adds to their knowledge? (I'm not talking about vaccines because I am in agreement about their necessity.)
"and that's the only place they get their ideas from... according to your belief system?"
It has nothing to do with my "belief system." It's a matter of empirical fact.
"When science doesn't support it, time to move on to ad-hominem. Witness the flap over Amy Wallace's Wired article: http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/10/when_critics_disagree_with_me.php"
Yes, that's just what happens.
"It's great that doctors know the science but shouldn't they also be a little bit more open to new research, relating to non-traditional therapies, that adds to their knowledge?"
The problem is that there isn't any research that supports non-traditional therapies. It's just like any other area of science. There's no support for non-traditional physics or non-traditional chemistry, either.
I realize that many people wish that non-traditional remedies were helpful, but that doesn't make it so.
As a general matter, "alternative" health is defined as treatments that have no basis in scientific fact, so, by definition, they can't possibly be true.
Here you are again, so angry about the democratization of information and differences of opinions - especially when it comes to medical decisions.
Get used to it. We ALL get to be educated now. Whether you like it or not. And you seem to not.
My wife had natural child-birth three times. Our kids speak Mandarin Chinese, have scholarships to prestigious private schools and play varsity sports. We have chosen to give them some vaccines...but not all that are available and recommended. We read, consider, discuss. We view our doctor as a guide....NOT the ultimate authority. He works for us. Get it?!
Unnecessary cesarean procedures, over-medication of children for behavior modification, financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and testing facilities....these are among the abuses MD's have wrought on a once-uneducated public.
When the stakes (not to mention the cost) are SO high.....damn right we are going to question your opinion.
And your tone does no favor in advocacy of your views.
Lets take Birth for example: a person can get enough information from reliable sources regarding the basic process, interventions, etc to make their own decisions regarding their medical care. Most women are simply doing the reasearch for themselves and their situation, its not like they're reading "The Emergencey Guide to Childbirth" and offering to deliver other women's babies.
As I have said before, Ricki Lake isn't setting up shop somewhere, calling herself a midwife. She's just asking women to learn all they can, ask the right questions and make the best choices for themsleves and their babies. She's never called herself an expert and she's not advocating FOR homebirth, she's advocating for women to make their OWN choices, period.
this post, but you refuse to see that people can be educated about something without having a degree in it.
"We ALL get to be educated now."
Not exactly. You get to PRETEND to be educated. Only those with real education are actually educated.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Likewise, you don't need a degree in Logic, from Harvard or anywhere else, to recognize someone with an axe to grind.
"but you refuse to see that people can be educated about something without having a degree in it."
People are NOT educated without having formal education and training. You can pretend you are as educated as a pilot because you have been a passenger, that doesn't make it so. You can pretend to be "educated" about medicine without actually knowing anything about medicine, but that doesn't make it so, either.
I'm not sure why this should be even the slightest bit controversial. Being educated means having an education, and that doesn't happen by attending Google University.
Your construction of the "problem" paints only one answer from only one point of view. I think anyone who has lived with a form of a disease, may very well think they know quite a bit about it rather than a new MD coming out of medical school. These sweeping generalizations don't fly.
It isn't that you don't make good points; it's that you don't leave any room for other valuable information.
"Likewise, you don't need a degree in Logic, from Harvard or anywhere else, to recognize someone with an axe to grind."
But that doesn't make you educated. It merely makes you prey to conspiracy theories.
Absolutely. On the other hand, just because someone's educated doesn't necessarily mean they aren't full of shit. You're a perfect illustration of that Amy.
"When nothing is done to research this at a public health level"
This is a central point of confusion. The idea that no research has been done is a LIE. I cannot make it more plain than that. It is a lie created and perpetrated by vaccine rejectionists. There is copious data on the safety of vaccines extending back decades and covering literally millions of people.
Plenty of exceptions, but I am just saying.
Plus, most people doing research aren't MD's. Or they are the hybrid MD/PhD.
Basic science is the basis of a lot of medicine, but medicine isn't science.
Plus, you are picking straw men -- these vaccine nut jobs -- and beating the hell out of them. All the while, we have a crisis in American medical care delivery. Doctors might want to show a bit of humility. No?
"You're a perfect illustration of that Amy."
And how would you know? Oh, wait, don't tell me. You're "educated."
Unless most of your time is spent on prevention, you should eschew the label "health care."
"Rather they are educated to treat disease."
I addressed that canard not long ago: Big Placebo says Medicine never cures anything (http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/10/01/big_placebo_says_medicine_never_cures_anything):
"It is a measure of the astounding success of the American medical system that anyone could listen to that drivel and not fall to the floor laughing hysterically. American medicine cures so much disease, involving so many people, so reliably and so often that everyone takes it for granted.
Evidently American Medicine doesn't cure anything except ... tuberculosis, pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, gonorrhea, any bacterial illness you care to name. American medicine routinely cures previously deadly conditions like appendicitis, ectopic pregnancies and obstetric hemorrhage. Better yet, it can completely prevent many viral and bacterial scourges through vaccination. It's not a coincidence that American lifespan has increased from 48 years to 77.7 years in slightly more than a century. Much of what routinely killed Americans is now routinely cured.
In fact, cure is so routine that these illnesses rarely enter American consciousness. No one worries about dying from tertiary syphilis, diphtheria or rheumatic heart disease. Those diseases are routinely prevented or cured in their early stages.
And "disease management" is hardly a deficiency, either. Some diseases cannot yet be cured. Until the day that a cure is discovered, we manage those diseases. Juvenile (type I) diabetes was uniformly fatal until the discovery of insulin. Insulin doesn't cure diabetics; it merely allows them to live an addition 50 years or more. Instead of dying in childhood, type I diabetics routinely live to have and enjoy grandchildren. Such "disease management" is worthy of praise, not the contempt that Big Placebo attempts to heap on it."
It is almost as if this is personal to you. Does this has to do with your own children since you are no longer a practicing physician? Are you defending your own choices for what has happened with your own children? An open - mind helps us all. You are not an authority to me, there have been too many instances where science gets it wrong until it gets it right.
just pitching prevention.
Plus, the life insurers -- they had a lot to do with the revolution in public health. Doctors deserve credit, but it wasn't just doctors.
"Really? All 'vaccines'?"
Really. If you have scientific evidence showing anything else, I'd like to see it.
They are utter Luddites in that area.
And thats a fact, Jack.
But why do you conflate natural childbirth with the extreme fringes of home birth advocates? The former is something that happens all the time, often in medical settings, attended by doctors, CNMs, and nurses. The latter has its merits, and also its extremes, but there is a great difference between giving birth without drugs, in a position that feels right to the laboring woman, and without unnecessary interventions, in a hospital or medical birthing center...and giving birth in your bathtub. Plenty of doctors support and participate in natural childbirths.
And, there are some pretty backward doctors out there. I just had a really nasty experience with an endocrinologist who, to my mind, should not even be practicing. I've been hypothyroid for a long time, have been on proper medication for it, and have improved dramatically because of said medication. When I got pregnant, I had to find a different endocrinologist (long story I will not go into). The person I ended up seeing told me "I don't believe you - you aren't hypothyroid" (again, I was diagnosed by professionals, not by the internet, a long time ago, it runs in the family, I had all classic symptoms, and hormone treatment cleared them up), using outdated information about TSH levels to back up his "point" (guess he doesn't keep himself up to date, unlike my MD and midwives and OB-GYN). He also told me I had calcium deposits on my thyroid, but refused to tell me their size, or what they meant to my health.
(To add insult to injury, his office manager told me after the appointment - not before, as she should have - that they don't accept my insurance and I had to pay them a HUGE fee right then and there. This is not relevant to the medical aspect of this anecdote, but it says something about the arrogance and low level of professionalism of this practice)
Anyway, again, I'd like to ask why you conflate two such very different approaches to childbirth. It detracts from your point.
Maybe, part of the way to go with the no-vaccine people is to educate them as to what, for example, measles can do.
I'm no doctor but even I know there's a bigger, provable link between measles and disability/death than there is vaccines and disability.
That is to say, there's one (that I know of) research paper "linking" autism to the MMR vaccine, against literally millions of deaths and disabilities stemming from measles.
If people want to discuss whether or not to vaccinate their children, they should first learn what could happen if they *don't*.
As for natural childbirth: *eyeroll* the aim is to get the child born. Alive and healthy, preferably. If it takes full medical intervention to do so, then accept it. *When* it's first offered.
Doctors are, by their very education, experts. When I attain that level of expertise in that field, *then* I'll argue. Until then I'll ask questions if need be, but I won't assume I know more.
"Anyway, again, I'd like to ask why you conflate two such very different approaches to childbirth."
I view them as different points on the spectrum, united by a common misperception. That misperception is that childbirth is inherently safe (it's not), that pain medication is harmful (it's not) and that's there something admirable about women enduring agonizing pain ( I don't buy it).
Anyone who wants to have an unmedicated birth should do so, but why should it be viewed as a goal or an achievement?
In common with professional vaccine rejectionists, professional natural childbirth advocates are disingenuous at best and liars at worst. Natural childbirth was created by Grantly Dick-Read, an avowed racist and sexist believer in eugenics for the express purpose of convincing white women that childbirth pain is all in their heads. His fundamental claims are fabrications. Childbirth is nature is not painless, and primitive (read Black) women do not have painless labors.
Most of the central claims of natural childbirth advocacy, like all of the claims of vaccine rejectionism, are factually false.
"That is to say, there's one (that I know of) research paper "linking" autism to the MMR vaccine, against literally millions of deaths and disabilities stemming from measles."
You know that, and I know that, but amazingly vaccine rejectionists tell each other that measles was disappearing before the vaccination for it was in use so the vaccine should not be credited.
Sometimes medical experts are wrong, and I think you know that. The purpose of science is to test hypotheses, and to some extent, modern medicine is a continual testing of those same hypotheses on individuals. There never will be the final answer on lots and lots of medical issues, and I think people who challenge the current medical zeitgeist are useful to medicine on the whole, provided we are very cautious about adopting or trashing assumptions.
"She gets most of the facts wrong and anytime my husband corrects her, her response is, "Does it really matter?" This person was a teacher for 30 years!"
Wow! It seems that people feel they have a "right" to make up their own facts to suit themselves.
"and that's the only place they get their ideas from... according to your belief system?"
It has nothing to do with my "belief system." It's a matter of empirical fact."
Wow... it's interesting to see how she judges EVERYONE the same way but doesn't know shit about shit.
"One can certainly have some valuable knowledge about medicine without being a doctor or nurse, or even a scientist or pharmacist."
I agree, but the key point is that you have to have real knowledge not the musings of other people who also lack knowledge. That's why I am constantly encouraging people who are suspicious of vaccines to learn about immunology, virology and statistics. You can't understand vaccines unless you know something about those disciplines.
You amaze me, really. Let me get this straight, in order for "me" to know or understand ANYTHING about birth I must have an MD? Hmmm . . .so a pregnant woman doing her own research to make the best choices for herself is to "ignorant" (because she dosen't have that MD) to possibly understand the information to do so?
You would make a much better point if you would actually accept that people can have "knowledge" of a topic while not being an expert.
On another post you complined that people sneer at those with a formal education . . . it isn't the education people take issue with, its the "holier then thou" bullshit that people are fed up with. Sorry, but a person can have all the degrees they want, but if a person presents themself as a pompus ass, don't be offended with people roll their eyes and just walk away.
Attitude is everything, Amy.
"are you really so pompus to assume that everyone just uses "google" and no one knows how to read or do actual research?
Yup. I've yet to come across a vaccine rejectionist who has read the major scientific papers on the subject, and most couldn't understand them if they read them.
"Attitude is everything, Amy."
No, truth is everything.
No one is going to die from my bad attitude, but children have already died because the same parents who claimed to be "educated" about vaccines had no idea what they were talking about.
It goes both ways.
I received an education - with an actual degree - from one of the most selective, competitive universities in the country. The purpose of a liberal education is (or used to be) the acquisition of critical thinking skills.
I remember you opining in these pages on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Are you certified to do so?
And, as far as I know, you are an OB-GYN (non-practicing at that), not a certified expert in infectious diseases nor public health administration. Why should we listen to you about matters pertaining to immunology? Where's your credential?
You maybe should move to China where they opt for (rather are forced into) a more centralized authority. Because, HERE, for the moment, policies and decisions regarding all kinds of standards and practices, are reached largely by consensus.
Fact is, I was interested in your opinion about vaccines.....as it is a subject of much debate and contention (deservedly or not). But your superior tone and general condescension toward opposing viewpoints are a real turn-off.
You deserve an opinion....but not the last word.
Well, duh (if you're going to be juvenile, I'll happily join you). My point was that there is a difference between choosing a moderate middle ground, where you can give birth in a way that is comfortable (relatively) and safe, and in a medical setting (again, safe, monitored, baby well taken care of)...and giving birth in a high-risk fashion (i.e. home birth...I don't understand why anyone would want to do that...my home would never be clean enough for that, for one thing). And notice, I said no *unnecessary* medical interventions. Many interventions are quite necessary. I'm not talking about offers of painkillers. There's nothing wrong with epidurals. Although they are said to sometimes slow the process, they don't hurt the baby. They also don't have any bearing on the safety of the baby, either, now do they?
I'm talking about things like what nearly happened to a good friend of mine - the nurses wanted to literally strap her down on her back. Her doula prevented that. The doctor confidently told her the baby would take four more hours - fifteen minutes later the kid came out, my friend was totally relaxed because she was in a position that facilitated his birth and because she had an excellent attendant, and end of story.
Another friend, a total earth-mama prenatal yoga teacher, developed preeclampsia and had to have a c-section. Totally necessary. You really just never know.
Sorry, but natural childbirth was not "invented" by anyone. Women have been having babies for a long time. The opportunity we have now, to walk the middle ground and have a relatively natural birth but in a medical setting should anything go wrong, is so wonderful. We are safer than ever in some parts of the world (and not at all in others, sadly). I have no doubt that there have been advocates of it who are crazy/racist/crackpots/etcetera. But the vast majority of women who chose to have their babies naturally in recent decades, my mother among them, did so not because they were in the sway of some pro-eugenics svengali. They did so because hospital births in the middle of the 20th century were often brutal, and they did not want them. Drugged with scopolamine, which caused hallucinations and flailing, and didn't actually kill the pain, just caused amnesia; strapped down, babies forcep'd or suctioned out, baby whisked away from you immediately, no memory of anything, but feeling awful upon emerging, to hear my older relatives tell it - that's what "twilight sleep" was. Nice name for a pretty traumatizing experience. The general consensus is that this really wasn't the best way to give birth, for women or for babies. If it were, it would still be happening.
Not everyone who wants a gentler childbirth experience is militant about it. I'm due in a couple of weeks, and if I need interventions, no big deal. I hope for a quick and reasonably easy delivery, but hey, whatever has to happen. Don't assume that everyone who chooses a comparatively "natural" childbirth has some kind of hangup about it. Mostly, we just want the best all around. Sometimes that means a jacuzzi. Sometimes it means a c-section. I don't subscribe to the bullshit about birth affecting the baby for its entire life, that's a bunch of crap. But would you really argue that in a low-risk birth, mothers don't need support and comfort? Do you not understand that those things often make a birth progress less painfully?
As far as vaccines go, I have had it up to here with paranoid freakouts about them. Someone emailed my neighborhood listserv a month or so ago with a breathless screed about how the H1N1 vax "contains animal cancer!!!!!" (exclamation points hers). It was infuriating, and repeated requests for her to back this ridiculous statement up with facts went unanswered. And I'm actually pretty worried about non-vaccinated kids in the school system and elsewhere. That seems like a serious danger.
Someone on another message board I frequent posted a worry that the H1N1 vax is step one in some kind of "socialist big government plot" on Obama's part. Yeah, uh-huh, that's right. Because a healthy population is an easily-controlled population! Oy. If that's what we're all up against...
I wasn't actually answering your post because I hadn't read it. I was giving my opinion on the fragment of Amy's blog that touched upon natural childbirth. If I had *had* an answer to your comment, I would have addressed it to you. As I said, I haven't read your comment, nor have I read beyond the first line of your comment to me.
"Well, duh (if you're going to be juvenile, I'll happily join you)" OK then. Self absorbed much?
Amy, I am *really* sorry.
It is my life and my decisions have kept us healthy and skeptical. When you have a bunch of doctors standing around pointing fingers at each other because none of them know what to do, and then what they do is dangerous, you get smart really quickly.
Anyhow, doctors and medications are just as flawed as everything else, and therefore should be open to just as much skepticism. Read Travellini's post today for clarification.
To remind you, doctors certainly start out as regular human beings who can, mainly, read. Then, study of the discipline goes forth from there. But as a person who can read, I do understand the big words, Amy. When my doctor once told me there was "pulmonary infiltration," I was smart enough to know what that meant without a dictionary. Most people can do quite a bit with a self-taught method in terms of comprehension of the material. Anyone who can read and who has a good sense of critical thinking can learn enough about a discipline to understand strong amounts of it. And can learn which journals are good ones and which ones are not. It's not exactly rocket science. It has much more to do with memorization.
Can I "practice" (a word you never seem to quite remember--and it's an important one) medicine? No, I can't. First, I would get arrested because I don't have a license. Next, I don't have the necessary in-training experience of being a resident. Hands-on experience is vital. Am I intelligent enough to understand what's written in a journal of medicine? Yes. Yes, I am.
And so are a lot of other people. Your assumption appears to me to be "If you didn't study to be a doctor, you are a moron." If that's not the case, let me be the first to tell you that your ability to communicate is sorely lacking. Learning to communicate can be self taught too. If you can get past the vast ego you're sporting.
As for vaccinations, which you've been harping on forever now, it's boring now, and serves no purpose but to whore your blog. Do you imagine you'll influence anyone to feel differently or save a life here? You won't. In fact, you could very well turn someone who is on the fence away from the doctor's office with your poor bedside manner. People are cautious for the very behaviors that you are displaying. The arrogance, the belief that everyone who isn't a doctor is complete idiot and cannot comprehend medical jargon, those very qualities are one of the main reasons that people continue not to trust physicians. That's on you.
Learning to be humble might do you and any potential patients some good.
And for anyone who is concerned about the H1N1, my child and I got the shot a few days ago. We're both fine, and she had previously had an allergic reaction (eggs) that has apparently faded with age. So, while I understand your concerns, those who do not vaccinate as much or as frequently, from someone who understands your fears and sympathizes with them, the shot worked fine for us. (I promise I do understand--I've spread the Kid's shots out so that she gets one or two shots a month. She's on schedule with other kids. Just more doctor visits. That allergic reaction made me cautious for her. Oh, and it's doctor-recommended to boot. If she has another allergic reaction, we want to know which shot made her wheeze or swell.)
So, (back to you, Amy) while it won't do a bit of good, I know, if you really want to help people, you should think about taking a different stance from the one entitled "Self Righteous Arrogant Jerk Doctor." If it's all about your blog, of course, you'll continue to be, you know, you at your worst. Perhaps hits are more important than people to you. It looks that way, but I could be wrong. Totally up to you, of course.
And while all doctors might be educated in medicine, many are not very educated in other areas. For example, your average practicing physician has a rather pathetic comprehension of mathematics and statistics. They usually take the "statistics for dummies" class in college and throw in some trigonometry for good measure. This is laughable.
Then maybe they read an interesting article in the New York Times about a medical subject. And form a quick opinion the subject by browsing a few research articles which they really don't have the education or specialization to fully understand . And then they write a blog about it.
Nor is public health the same as my own personal health. One has to weigh all of the information together. There is one area that I am much better educated about than any doctor: my own body and mind. I am not a statistic and I do not fit neatly into any single category that might be necessary to make massive quantities of data comprehensible and publishable in a paper. I am an individual with whom a doctor must *collaborate* in order to do his job well. Because there is only one way he can get the information that he needs the most to help me: he has to actually talk to me.
Now you're into stand up comedy huh amy....that's a joke right? You're the biggest "science rejectionist" I've ever seen. Oh my goodness you crack me up! LOL
You want to have it both ways - which is fine - that is what makes your blog "sticky" but ultimately adds to the black and white divide to disseminating misinformation of hysterics on both sides. Its no different than politics, and no one can claim to have authority there when using these types of tactics.
What everyone wants is accurate information.
When you say, 'all vaccines', and then suggest that this dumb title of 'vaccine rejectionists', which is not what most people are, more concerned citizens who have witnessed a host of reasons to be concerned and a public health consortium which does not have incentives to complete testing, other than double blind placebo testing, we have a total cluster jerk on our hands. Your incentive is no less genuine - as you have shown by sniping bits of my comments to get back to this whole 'give me the proof' of which you say in another post 'I can't give you because it is unethical.' Hence, having it both ways.
No, Amy, I won't play dumb for your firing line. This isn't about putting good, quality information out there, or creating skeptical conversation about varying health matters. This is either purely about clicks or it is about validating a personal point of view, being about your own children.
Everybody deserves clear, accurate information, and if one human being is being hurt by vaccines (including the flu shot), public health initiatives, childbirth, or any other medical undertaking, they are not defying authority by questioning the current standard, they are owning their personal power - taking the power of their own life into their hands and being responsible for it.
"Can I "practice" (a word you never seem to quite remember--and it's an important one) medicine? No, I can't. First, I would get arrested because I don't have a license".
Apparently, neither can she. It appears she doesn't have a license either and continues to duck that question.
OMG....I almost fell out of my chair!!! LOL Good one Nanatelay! You know, you would think she would get tired of having her ass handed to her so much.....but i guess not. LOL
"I received an education - with an actual degree - from one of the most selective, competitive universities in the country. "
So what? So you learned about your area of specialty. That does not make you qualified to determine if vaccines are safe or necessary. I'm not sure why you think it does or why you think it is even relevant to this discussion.
You have to poke vaginas to be a vaccine expert!!
"Sorry, but natural childbirth was not "invented" by anyone."
It certainly was invented. "Natural" childbirth is a philosophy that has nothing to do with childbirth in nature. It was invented to tell Western white women how to have babies and how to feel about it. It is a fetish only among Western white women in first world countries who like to pretend that they are recapitulating nature when they are doing nothing of the kind.
Most of what "natural" childbirth advocates think they know about childbirth is factually false.
"But the vast majority of women who chose to have their babies naturally in recent decades, my mother among them, did so not because they were in the sway of some pro-eugenics svengali."
They didn't KNOW that they were in the sway of a pro-eugenics Svengali. they didn't know that he made up the part about childbirth pain being a social construct or that he made up the part about primitive women having painless births.
"Drugged with scopolamine,"
The use of scopolamine and morphine was driven by women's demands. Most doctors did not approve of it when it was first introduced from Germany, but women wanted it.
If women want to have an unmedicated childbirth, they should do so, but they should not fall for the propaganda that it is safer, healthier or better in any way than childbirth with pain relief.
I understand that this is not what you have been told, but it is the truth.
"my decisions"
Your decisions based on what? Your intuition?
"Most people can do quite a bit with a self-taught method in terms of comprehension of the material."
Possibly, but first they actually have to read it. How many scientific papers have you read from start to finish? Zero?
I find this entire discussion mind boggling. People are actually trying to argue with me that they can understand immunology without ever having read anything about immunology. You have got to be kidding me.
"But educated and intelligent (or even rational) are not synonyms. I've met several unintelligent doctors."
So what?
You CANNOT know anything about immunology without studying immunology. PERIOD. No matter how much you would like to pretend otherwise, no matter how much you would like to pat yourself on the back for being "educated." And if you don't know anything about a subject, you can't possibly make an informed decision.
It is so obvious as to be ludicrous and yet people continue to insist that they are "educated" despite the fact that they don't know anything about the subject under discussion.
Most of the comments on this thread prove my point ... repeatedly. Many of you have no clue what you are talking about and you argue that it doesn't matter and expect to be taken seriously. Unbelievable.
"What everyone wants is accurate information."
Then why don't they make any effort to learn the information they need? Why do they pretend they can become "educated" at Google University?
"And, as far as I know, you are an OB-GYN (non-practicing at that), not a certified expert in infectious diseases nor public health administration. Why should we listen to you about matters pertaining to immunology? Where's your credential?"
Mmmmm Jon....she's not going to answer that, she has been asked repeatedly to produce any credentials to show she is an expert in any of those fields. Evidently she can not.....so, she's pretty much like the rest of us "uneducated" little people. But just wait until we have a yeast infection pandemic, then we can all rush to her for her expertise!! :)
"a term that in this case could indeed imply hundreds or even thousands of hours of study on a particular topic."
Absolutely, but first you have to put in those hours. Reading a vaccine rejectionist website is not "study." If people want to make an informed decisions about vaccines they MUST understand basic immunology and virology.
http://search.mit.edu/search?__EVENTTARGET=&__EVENTARGUMENT=&site=ocw&client=mit&getfields=*&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Focw.mit.edu%2FOcwWeb%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle-ocw.xsl&proxyreload=1&as_dt=i&oe=utf-8&departmentName=web&courseName=&q=immunology&btnG.x=11&btnG.y=7
This is a link to MIT's Open Course Ware....anyone that wants to can take the same class that students at MIT take. Now, you don't get a fancy piece of paper telling every one your an expert in immunology, but that’s ok, amy doesn't have one either. So now we can all be experts and have lively discussions! Yea!
http://jenjensfamily.blogspot.com/?spref=fb
Now, before you start saying "where's the proof?" like a chirping windmill, I will refer you to my earlier comment in which you choose to disregard and rather EEOffend with lame attempts at belittling your readers, like me. You can't have it both ways. These are concerned parents who obviously believed in vaccines and choose to go this route for their daughter - and are now questioning that choice and would like answers for it. Who the hell wouldn't?
You can't reply to my comments because they are not neat enough for you - not black and white enough. But, the fact remains, you are adding to the problem instead of helping to add awareness and common sense solutions. It would be great it you could put all this energy into something more altruistic, your passion is great, but obviously misdirected.
Over and out.
The flu vaccine frenzy simply isn't supported by the science; that it is medical science fundamentalists who are most outraged by vaccine resistance is highly ironic.
Did you read that on the Internet or is this from some of the education you received? Is it in any way backed up by data? Is there a journal article to which you could refer to give it some relevance? Or is it some old idiom that you like to use to demonstrate a point that otherwise serves no useful role in a scientific discussion?
"If I eat cyanide, I WILL die. "
No. If you eat enough cyanide, you will die. You're as idiotic as amateurdr.
Exactly! It is applied guesswork.
On the contrary! People read your blog post the other all about immunology. Wasn't that supposed to educate them about immunology? Or was there some other reason you posted it on the Internet?
Joe is one of many who have tried to point this out.
AmyTuteurMD wants to fight with people.
Responding to "ignorant" humans (i.e., lay people) with name-calling invective and self-aggrandizing diatribes adds EXACTLY ZERO to the public discourse. And "educates" no one, for that matter.
If fighting with people obscures the goal of protecting public health, so what? AmyTuteurMD wants to fight with people more than anything else.
When they write your Internet epitaph it will surely say, "AmyTuteurMD loved to fight with people." Is that what you really want?
No fewer than 8 (count them, eight) medical doctors misdiagnosed me. Count among them a 3 gynos, 2 general practitioners, 2 cardiologists and a radiologist. Only the anesthesiologist tried to stop the surgery. She failed, and I underwent the procedure with existing blood clots in my lungs. 18 months of symtpoms and not 1 of 8 medical docs caught the DVT and subsequent pulmonary emoblism. Both lungs. Multiple. I was 36-48 hours from death when the pulmonologist FINALLY ordered the scan AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
Fuck you medical Gods. You are not infallible. You medical Gods almost cost me my life. I kept TELLING the medical Gods that there was something VERY wrong and they kept brushing me off.
Thank heavens for the internet where we, the piddlin ordinary people, can check up on you extremely fallible medical Gods. Most of this happened at Cleveland Clinic BTW.
There is no surer mark of ignorance than 8 doctors who tell you your symptoms are reasonable when the whole time you are dying from a very curable problem that none of them bothered to listen to and think about.
Dr. Amy, I have one questinon - if a doctor sees an adverse reaction to a drug, how does he/she report it to CDC/FDA?
----So what? So you learned about your area of specialty. That does not make you qualified to determine if vaccines are safe or necessary. I'm not sure why you think it does or why you think it is even relevant to this discussion.----
Amy,
Maybe you didn't read my whole comment. I mentioned my degree for two reasons. First, because you seem to respect credentials. Second....to point out that a liberal arts degree (as well as life experience, at-home education, and many other disciplined pursuits) imparts upon it's recipient - or should - the ability to THINK CRITICALLY.
That is what everyone here disagreeing with your posture (which seems like most of us) wants you to understand. Many, many people have the tools to question the advise and guidance of any number of professionals.
You have not given one iota of attention here to the idea that many in the medical profession (if not the profession as a whole) may have alienated smart, principled people by acting otherwise.
If you care about the collective message in these comments, not to mention your own effectiveness as a messenger, it seems like you may want to reflect on how to communicate as a medical professional.
"I find this entire discussion mind boggling. People are actually trying to argue with me that they can understand immunology without ever having read anything about immunology. You have got to be kidding me."
I can understand how frustrating this is for you, having such a huge superiority complex. It must be getting more difficult with each post you make. I'm well past really trying to have a discussion with you, your arrogance is just plain offensive. Now I just stop by because I enjoy pounding on a mental midget. It’s just to easy really. LOL
Why don't you practice anymore?
I bet it's hard to buy a hat for that big head of yours.
You are embarrassed that this has been made clear, angry that actual knowledge is necessary, and incensed that you aren't entitled to crown ignorance as being educated.
In short, you are perfectly demonstrating my thesis!
I understand why you are embarrassed but I don't understand why you don't do the obvious thing and LEARN something about immunology. Are you afraid of what you'll find? Is it too hard for you? What's the reason you'd rather pretend to be "educated" instead actually acquiring the relevant knowledge?
But mostly it's about the fact that instead of trying to understand other people, you like to label them. And instead of trying to work with people to educate them, you like to fight with them. This article is about fighting.
How's that superiority complex working out for ya?
If anyone is still watching this unpleasant space, here's an interesting, informative article from this month's Atlantic Monthly on the efficacy of the flu vaccine. Is is a non-definitive examination of the issue, different opinions offered. You will still have to MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND and, fortunately, you still are free to do so
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
so much silliness i seriously don't even know where to begin.
i read your last article and now this one. You have an amazing ability to piss people off with your absolutist tone.
my dear, there are more ways to become educated than attending formal classes.
I lived for 20 years with a mother who had a stroke. Ironically i had a deep interest in neurology since about the age of 14, even before my mom got sick. I'm now 41. I assure you, I could tell you as much about the brain as many first year residents and perhaps some who are finished. And more about how to care for someone with brain injury that any of them. How did (do) I learn it? Studying in the library (this was before the days of google) for lots of time. Was it formal training and education? hell no. But i studied the same books they were studying in medical school and it was moronic doctors like you who were dismissive of my educated questions because, they, like you, assumed i didn't know anything because MD wasn't after my name.
Seriously, there are more than a few accepted ways of getting educated and while I share your dismay about people taking celebrities seriously when they obviously don't have the whole story; and as disturbing as it is that people don't seem to have the skills necessary to learn all the facts; i think you are unnecessarily abrasive and closed minded. You can make your point without painting everyone without an MD as some sort of slack-jawed yokel who only knows where his asshole is because the doctor told him so.
come on. i hope you're better than that. But this is the second article I've read of yours that seems to reinforce that attitude. Its off putting and makes me wonder how someone of your education cant figure out how to make your case without drawing ire from would-be allies.
How would you know that if you have no idea of what formal training entails? It's very difficult to know what you don't know if you've never been exposed to it.
My brother has suffered from chronic, debilitating pain for 10 years beginning at the age of 36. He has been to every kind of doctor imaginable, but aside from prescribing drugs they can do NOTHING about it - except tell him a bunch of conditions that it's NOT.
The basic principle that seems to get under your skin is that when doctors and "conventional" medicine can't help someone they tend to look ELSEWHERE.
Perhaps some day this will happen to you or someone you love and you will feel the frustration of an arrogant medical establishment that can't help you and then condescends and makes fun of you for looking elsewhere for answers.
By the way, 100 years from now, your medical knowledge will be looked back on the way that we look at those doctors 100 years ago.
It's both scary and depressing, isn't it?
No, the basic principle, which you appear to be demonstrating, is that people pronounce themselves "educated" without having a clue how much they don't know. Vaccine rejectionists, by their own admission, know nothing about immunology, but in their supreme ignorance think such knowledge is unnecessary.
I am not using rhetoric here. If education and practice is so important to the study of medicine, aren't you instructing your readers not to trust you?
Funny! If you really mean this then you lack the ability to draw logical conclusions (trust me - after all, I majored in Math so I must know more about logic than you do).
If you re-read my post you will see that I did not pronounce myself educated in any way, shape or form about medicine or health.
I simply stated that in those cases where doctors can't help, it's understandable for people to turn elsewhere for answers.
Note that I don't expect you to either re-read my post or admit that your conclusion, based on what I said was illogical - because while I find your posts interesting I can't recall ever seeing you admit to being wrong about something.
One of my pet peeves is those who so grossly misrepresent what someone else says - it either means that they didn't bother reading it with anything resembling an open mind - or worse, that they are disingenuously misrepresenting it for rhetorical purposes.
You are really stretching it. Any woman that would ignore their Dr, is going to do it, no matter what anyone says. Some people are going to do what tehy want, period. Its not Ricki's fault if a woman CHOOSES to take what she says as the gospel and
Its not Ricki's fault if a woman CHOOSES to take what she says as the gospel and just blow off her dr, because she read a book. Last I checked, no one holds a gun to a woman's head and FORCES her to have a homebirth or refuse an epidural.
used to be one trusted one's doctor. not so much any more. all those malpractice lawyers advertising on tv. all those numbers (a 1% fatality rate in a 300 million population is a whopping 3 million deaths). all those side effect disclaimers on tv.
everytime we turn around, there's a new, well publicized study that contradicts the previous day's well publicized study which is in direct opposition to the previous day's well publicized research findings. it's monday, coffee:good; tuesday, coffee:bad; wednesday coffee:good.
who do you believe? who do you trust? who is saying what and why? who is funding what study that yields what findings? which doctors are going to drug company "retreats" at resorts to learn about certain drugs and procedures? which doctors are directly on the "payroll?"
who do you believe? who do you trust?
"isn't any choice an act of faith?"
No more or less than hiring an architect as opposed to your neighbor who read some books on architecture or hiring a lawyer instead of your cousin who watches lots of episodes of Judge Judy. As in the case of architecture or the law complex questions require expert opinions. If you want to venture into addressing those complex questions yourself, you need at least basic knowledge of the relevant disciplines.
I'm not saying that you couldn't learn basic immunology on your own. I'm saying that if you don't bother to learn basic immunology, you don't know enough to make a rational decision on vaccination.
"It's very unappealing!"
You'd be surprised how many people write to me privately for medical advice and explanations, including those who are the most vicious in their comments on my message boards.
I make people mad, yes, but when it comes down to it, people trust my medical knowledge.
Particularly in the area of vaccine rejection and other forms of quackery, people need to be told the truth and the truth is not pleasant. They have been hoodwinked because they refuse to do the hard work necessary to make themselves knowledgeable. They take the easy way out and simply pretend they're "educated."
"Any woman that would ignore their Dr, is going to do it, no matter what anyone says."
That's not what I hear from people. At the moment, on my personal blog (www.skepticalob.com) there are stories from 3 women whose babies died at homebirth. They thought that homebirth was a safe and loving choice. Ricki Lake told them that it was as safe or safer than hospital birth. That's what all the other homebirth advocates told them, too.
Had these women realized that there was a real chance that their baby would die (homebirth with an American homebirth midwife has triple the neonatal mortality rate as hospital birth for comparable risk women), they wouldn't have done it. But they didn't realize and now their babies are dead and they will have to live with the guilt and grief forever.
If I can prevent one baby from dying at homebirth, or one child dying because of vaccine rejectionism, all the insults will be worth it. For me the bottom line in both homebirth and vaccine rejectionism is protecting children, not protecting the feelings of the adults who have been duped.
"who do you believe? who do you trust?"
You cannot trust anyone who does not have a solid education and practical skills in the area of medicine they are discussing. That does not mean that every doctor is good or correct. It merely means that a B-movie starlet is not the place to look for an answer.
"how much does the AMA pay you to write these? YOU'RE SUCH A TOOL!"
Don't lie about me to assuage your frustration. Prove your claim or withdraw it and apologize for making up accusations.
You need to apologize for your own personal moral corruption, exploitation of others, and of course, absolute and total dishonesty about everything your "profession" actually does!!!
"Apologize?!!"
Yes, apologize. That's what most people do when caught in a lie.
I can understand your frustration, as there are people will just won't listen to anything reasonable and their decisions put their kids in danger: that I think is wrong, we agree on that. I read that piece from your other blog, devastating.
As much as I support HB being an availble choice for women, it needs to be done responsibly. I'll use me as a great example, I would love to be able to do it at home, but it wasn't a good option for "me" After almost every miscarriage I've had, there have been bleeding issues, this last one ealier this year, I nearly lost my uterus. So, knowing my history, wouldn't it be STUPID for me to try to deliver at home? (even moreso for a midwife to take me as a client?)
How many women are lying to themselves and giving birth at home "because they can" while at the same time putting not only their life but their child's, in danger? How many midwives are actually doing the right screening?
Doctors used to be above reproach, but the veil has been lifted it's no longer off limits to discuss the limitations to their knowledge as well as their ineptitude and corruption, when it is seen.
THIS is what Dr. Amy is lashing out at - people who don't revere doctors (and former doctors) for their knowledge and innate superiority.
Particularly in the area of vaccine rejection and other forms of quackery, people need to be told the truth and the truth is not pleasant. They have been hoodwinked because they refuse to do the hard work necessary to make themselves knowledgeable. They take the easy way out and simply pretend they're "educated."
I just want to be clear - are you an immunologist? An allergist? You know, those specialized fields of medicine.
Your statements are based on the fact that you went to medical school. How many immunology classes did you take? When was this?
You are a FORMER OB/GYN and, following your own advice, should not be giving anyone information on any specialized field of medicine.
I imagine on your other blog you misrepresent yourself as well. You don't practice medicine and you haven't in 15 years. Period. Apparently, people can only become knowledgeable or educated if they take a course in school. You're sad. No one should take medical advice from you whether it's in your related field or not. You are not a physician. Nor an immunologist.
"You are a FORMER OB/GYN"
And you're not.
That means that I know much, much more about these topics than you do. Might an immunologist know even more? Sure, but, of course an immunologist would agree with me.
The only people who disagree are the people who know far, far less. And that's because they have no clue what they are talking about.
Instead of whining and complaining that I'm mean to you, why don't you LEARN something. What are you afraid of? The truth?
"THIS is what Dr. Amy is lashing out at - people who don't revere doctors (and former doctors) for their knowledge and innate superiority."
Way to change the subject. Do you or do you not know anything about immunology? And if you don't (and we know you don't) how on earth do you think you can make an informed an informed decision? And why on earth should anyone take you seriously?
This is a perfectly wrong analogy and illustrates exactly the point that AmyTuteurMD doesn't seem to get. The point was partially made by Nick Carraway when he wrote: "Basic science is the basis of a lot of medicine, but medicine isn't science."
Medicine isn't engineering, either. Engineering uses as its basis quantifiable physical laws which can be demonstrated over and over again with consistent results. Architecture is not based on statistics and especially not on statistics where the categories are man-made and decidedly mushy.
Medicine may come closer to being the law, where interpretation of complex situations makes applying simple laws more nuanced.
Physicians do not have answers, they have guesses based on a limited set of data. For all their education, they are still just interpreting the limited data and taking a stab. And if an interpreter can't communicate, then the interpreter fails and provides no service of value. Everyone has the right to reject a service that has no value.
I don't see up there where I whined or complained about your "being mean". I see that I called you out on a couple of things though. You said in another blog that you write the way you do because it gets people to read you - you want people to "hear" what you have to say. They don't. They can't get past your attitude. Guess what? You aren't better than me or any one of us because you went to medical school and we didn't.
Your last statement made me laugh right out loud. How can I possibly LEARN something when I haven't been to school for it? I mean, we can't garner any kind of education about a subject unless we study it, correct? That's what this entire post says. So, is this some sort of class that I wasn't aware of? Or is it just that we can learn all we need to about any aspect of the medical field if you are so kind as to present it to us, but we are idiots to think we could find any other resource on it?
And what are you even talking about? I'm afraid of the truth? What the hell does that even mean? Is this "A Few Good Men"? Or do you mean the truth that you are just a far superior person to everyone? That truth is only yours to behold. I'm a far better person and I don't need to write a post about it just to prove to everyone what a bitch I am. You're a hypocrite.
I tried new doctors, and I got a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome for which I was prescribed antispasmodics, but they never helped. In fact, one put me in shock because I was unable to urinate. I underwent upper and lower GI studies, lots of poking and prodding by a variety of doctors, and they found nothing.
So I started researching it on my own after I had been sick for five years. There was no Internet in those days, so I bought diagnostic books, alternative health care books, and whatever else I could get my hands on that might help, in an effort to find a cure. I had been sick for five years, and it became impossible to even keep a job.
I tried a variety of medications for a few of the more common causes of the symptoms, including giardiasis, but eventually I hit on an article or chapter somewhere that said antibiotics (among other things) can completely eliminate all of the beneficial flora in the digestive system, making it difficult to break foods down properly. Drugs did exist for the condition, but yeast infections were considered quackery by most of the medical establishment, so I couldn't get my doctor or her office-mates to let me try it.
We began to drive to Mexico once a month to buy a month's supply of a drug called Nystatin, and I cut way back on simple carbohydrates. I took my doctor a few journal articles on the drug I was taking, and she became willing to prescribe it for me. It worked. I stayed on the drug for six months, and I was fine.
Today, I can digest broccoli, peppers, and whatever else I might choose to steam and lightly butter.
I might have been sick for the rest of my life if I hadn't decided that doctors are limited by their own suppositions sometimes.
Since then, several better antifungal drugs have hit the market, and the medical establishment has come around at last, perhaps because doctors were seeing more of this with their AIDS patients. I occasionally have a resurgence of the condition (although not in my gut), and doctors have been quite willing to hand out prescriptions for these drugs.
I would never trust a starlet to provide reputable medical information, but it is important to remember that we are partners in our own care. Doctors don't know or recall everything, and we know our bodies better than anyone. Research can help us get the care we need when doctors are too busy to research a problem or too unwilling to seek a solution by nonstandard means, which in this case became the standard treatment later.
Groopman claims that "Some 10 to 15 percent of all patients either suffer from a delay in making the correct diagnosis or die before the correct diagnosis is made." He doesn't quote a source for this number, so take it with a grain of salt. But there's no doubt that misdiagnoses occur and that they do much to undermine the authority that AmyTuteurMD seems to crave. More importantly, they demonstrate that all the education in the world doesn't guarantee a good outcome for any given interaction between doctor and patient. Taking knowledge of theoretical constructs and huge volumes of data and synthesizing them into the practice of medicine on individuals clearly takes more than a certificate on the wall.
Several commentors have made this claim, but it is an illogical response to the issue under discussion.
I have said doctors know more than lay people about immunology.
And I have also said those who don't know immunology can't make an informed decision about vaccination.
You (and others) have replied by saying "doctors don't know everything." That is not a counterclaim and it does nothing to challenge the truth of my statements.
It's as if I said "I know calculus and you don't" and you replied "you didn't get a perfect score on your calculus test." Maybe so, but that doesn't mean you know calculus.
I don't think there is any question that doctors know more immunology than the average lay person, and they certainly know more immunology than someone who hasn't bothered to learn any immunology. So the fact that your doctor might be wrong, does not make you right. The fact that you lack the most basic knowledge about immunology means that you can be right only by accident since you don't really know what you are talking about.
It is insufficient to argue that these people are missing A. It is necessary to prove that you have B and C.
"So, psychiatrists and neurologists know more about immunology than the layperson."
Of course.
"Do all immunologists agree on which vaccines are beneficial and which are not?"
I'm not aware of a single immunologist who is a vaccine rejectionist. Doctors, immunologists, virologists and public health officials are tearing their hair out over the way lay people are risking the lives of their children because they've been duped by people who know nothing about immunology.
I really cannot believe that you are even trying to argue this point.
But B and C aren't necessary. They may be nice and patients may like those qualities, but they have nothing to do with being factually correct.
Unless you have basic knowledge of the subject under discussion, you can't make an informed decision about it. Why are you even arguing this point?
And I think you might want to carefully reread. I never ever argued that A was unneccessary.
At this point we might want to add D to the list, where D is the ability to read. None of those scientific papers are going to help you if you can't read them.
The system is screwed up, doctors are incompetent about rare conditions, and in my experience care more about the profit they are making from the drugmakers than they do their patients.
Not to mention your absolutely uninformed and ridiculous arguments that those who oppose the swine flu vaccine are either stupid or conspiracy theorists. The damned FDA is being taken to court because it appears that THEY VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND SUCH TESTS AND PROCEDURES WERE ESTABLISHED (by doctors I would hasten to point out) FOR A REASON.
Not to mention even you are going to defend the dangerous nature not to mention staying power of say Mercury, in the brain (which the vaccine contains). And for some reason is marked hazardous to your health when it comes to sea food, but not a problem when it comes to vaccines?
Lady, you are either out to lunch, in complete denial, or your MD came by mail order. From a barely accredited institution called MDs-R-Us.
Your argument's about vaccines for example, completely negate the reality of what is really going on in the case of the swine flu.
Like say preventing stupid and untrained bureaucrats, not to mention some supposedly educated MDs, from breaking the law, lying about it, and then even pretending that there is something wrong with well educated consumers, degree or not.
Or perhaps you would like to defend the actions of the MD (from Johns Hopkins no less, one of the leading AIDS research hospitals in the country), from overseeing a program where the workers were so ignorant that they just infected over 20K vets with Hepatitus C AND AIDS, but not steralizing colonoscopy equipment after every procedure, which is standard hygenic practice for the procedure for at LEAST TWENTY FIVE YEARS, but rather at the end of the day.
Lady you are living in dreamland.
Not to mention that most doctors I know, including specialists like neurologists, have NO CLUE about what to do and how to treat some of the most rare disabilities on the planet (like TBI), not to mention it's comorditities and what they can be caused by, but I a mere peon, without the MD, who does in fact know far more about my conditions and how to treat them then even the highest trained specialists in most of New York City. Because I not only did the research but have basically convinced my doctors by empiracle proof that I know more about the endocannabinoid system of the brain and how THE MEDICINE I WANTED TO TAKE works better than the ones they wanted to prescribe do.
All from research on my part, from very respectable medical journals and all available on line. You know there is this funny thing called disciplined self study that doesn't require paying loads of cash to get those stupid little letters after your name.
Plus we tend to be less arrogant.
You sound as defensive as you are stupid. And your argument is even more ludicrous in the face of say Lincoln making a hell of a lawyer without even going to law school. He had the discipline, as I do, to teach himself. IT'S CALLED READING COMPREHENSION AND RESEARCH.
IT'S ALSO CALLED KNOWING WHERE TO LOOK FOR REPUTABLE INFORMATION ON LINE AND SELF TEACHING. Which is perfectly legit.
I'm not saying adopt Suzanne Summers vitamin cure on the advice of Oprah.
But what I am saying is that your self defensiveness of your precious degrees, is only one of the many problems of healthcare provision in this country. Namely that doctors don't listen to their patients, are often on the pay of pharma companies who bribe them to proceed in a certain way (not to mention write scripts for certain medication), and are unwilling to recognize that it takes MONEY to go to advanced education, that most people do not have. Not to mention completely discount the medical training and knowledge of other cultures.
Like say England perhaps. Where they have shown, in empirical evidence and many double blind studies, that patients cure faster and get out of the hospital quicker, and on supposedly addictive drugs like morphine (which aren't addictive if you are really in pain), if the PATIENT, not the DOCTOR, administers the dosages. BECAUSE ONLY THEY CAN REALLY JUDGE THE PAIN.
So not only do you sound absolutely stupid, defensive, and ignorant to boot, but classist on top of that.
If I'd listened to that kind of crap from doctors who supposedly "know better" I'd be in worse shape than I am right now.
A fact even MY NEUROLOGIST ADMITTED.
So stuff it with the "formal education" crap.
You're wrong, your mean, you're myopic, and you're defensive.
Why don't you go focus on a topic where you can make a difference?
Like writing articles like other doctors on this site, who actually care about their patients, and are writing blogs about the horrific situation the medical profession is in, not to mention how people get treated by the medical establishment is so disgusting, it's out of control. Along with the corruption and bribes, including sexual favors, routinely used to "convince" doctors to prescribe a certain kind of treatment based more on their own personal profit than the benefit of the patients they are supposed to treat?
And let's not forget, that on top of that, most doctors, especially specialists, not only treat women like crap, but seem oblivious to the fact that most medical studies are conducted on MEN. Which when it comes to say neurology is absolutely nuts. For the simple reason, as you should know, since you hold that vaunted MD, men and women's BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT. But even in say cardiology, they are finding that the studies of the meds given to men, are killing or ineffective on women. And guess who they tested the studies for those medications on? YOU GUESSED IT. MEN.
Of course the doctors I'm referring to, who treat me with respect, even without the MD after my name, are respectful of my intelligence, take the time to check my research (which mostly comes from medical journals I'm perfectly capable of understanding) and are not superior, deliberately blind, self defensive snobs like you.
Grow up lady and start to practice medicine as your professional oath requires you to do.
I think you're not keeping track of your posters very well. I haven't said anything about immunology.
I'll remind you: I'm the poster who first said that it's not unreasonable for people to turn elsewhere for answers when doctors can't cure their problems.
After that you posted a response that seemingly had nothing to do with what I had posted.
So I posted again that you didn't seem to have a firm grip on logic.
Your response: that I'm not an expert in immunology.
Oye! Do you even READ peoples' comments?
But. Doctors need to get over feeling threatened by patients who have done a little independent research. If you think they've reached bad conclusions, tell them why. Don't take it as an assault on your professionalism and fall back on "Because I'm a doctor, and I say so."
Medical science has advanced so far that no one, not even a highly trained doctor, can be an expert on all of it. An analogy: I'm an archaeologist. I've got years of training and experience, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are amateurs out there who know more than I do about, let's say, the site of Teotihuacan. I would know more about research methods and principles of human social organization than our hypothetical amateur, due to my formal education in the field, but when it comes to the specific details of that site, of course I'd have to look it up. So if an amateur wants to talk to me about a site they've been reading about, outside of my area of expertise, I don't roll my eyes and assume that "the more 'educated' they are, the less they know."
As a college student, I went to my GP about a rash I had on my face. She wanted to refer me to a dermatologist, but the only one in the school's HMO had a 10-month wait, so she had to diagnose me herself. She thought it was an allergic reaction, prescribed antihistamines and topical cortisone, and sent me home. As it turns out, it was peri-oral dermatitis, a common infection that is made worse by cortisone. I don't blame her for not recognizing something outside her expertise, although the condition is far from rare in young women. However, if I had spent 10 minutes on Google before seeing the doctor, I could have asked her if it was peri-oral dermatitis. As soon as she looked it up, it would have been obvious. But to some doctors, such a thing would be a mortal insult.
The days when only those with credentials could access specialized knowledge are gone, and I can't see it as a bad thing. Sure, I have to put up with non-archaeologists at parties talking about how what they read on the internet "proves" the pyramids were built by space aliens. But that's a small price to pay for all the thousands of more reasonable people who are using the internet to educate themselves about archaeology in a way they never could have before.
amy,
why do you do this? how is this enjoyable for you? i feel bad for your family and loved ones.
you're like a medical-version of ann coulter.
But maybe go easy on the megaphone. It makes it difficult for you to hear anyone else.
Or respect them.
You responded to my post on a earlier thread basically indicating there was no need to respect people's fears because they wouldn't change their minds anyway.
So what is your purpose in all of this name calling and derision? Who is your audience?
Even the people who AGREE with you (in varying degrees) on vaccines are really put off by your attitude. And unless someone agrees 100% (as in "vaccines are flawless, no one is ever hurt by them, and only ignorant folks hesitate to shove the needle into a tiny baby's ass") you go after them like crazy.
If you don't think you can reach them, why respond at all, let alone with such arrogance and ridicule?
Who are you posting for? I think you imagine you'll get just the right number and sequence of words and quotes together that will be a lightening bolt through the brains of those who disagree. They fall to their knees and kiss your ring of brilliance.
And then when people respond in any other way than "Amen!", you unleash this invective, you dismiss their comments, refuse to follow their links, refuse, really, to engage in a real discussion.
Discussions involve respectful give and take. They can involve disagreement - even vehement disagreement.
Your posts are more like insulting diatribe disguised as blog entries, interrupted periodically by dissenters that are quickly added to your list of people to insult.
Maybe you can't reach anti-vaccine folks or whatever. So why waste your breath criticizing them.
And stop talking to the rest of us like we're dumbshits or worse.
I mean, you know what they call the person who got the lowest passing grades in medical school?
They call that person "Doctor".
Don't try to pretend the only people who are allowed to have an opinion about medical issues are doctors, or that all doctors are experts and completely above reproach.
Whatever, Amy. Just be more civil. Address specifics. Follow the links. Be respectful. That's all.
http://open.salon.com/blog/kathy_ak
I hope to see her on the front pages of Open Salon soon. I quoted an article from her in my former comment thread. I wanted to use something from someone with and "education" here on OS to see if you could address it, but, alas, you could not.
You just snip pieces from comments and never bother to reply. You are read, but not understood or digested. I am 100% convinced, based on your own admission about your "persona" post, you are about clicks and not about spreading well thought information. You are speaking to a very educated crowd to start with.
And, to Joan's point, you did not get a business degree. I did. An MBA actually. I don't need to list that though. I understand how the market and Big Business works. You may not think you signed on the dotted line for Big Pharma, but you are working for them none-the-less, just like 95% of the politicians in Washington.
Here is a nice article for you to look at. It clearly speaks to the reason why one would be skeptical of any doctor, especially an out of practice OB who is running a "sticky" blog, cropping comments to further her propaganda rather than answering educated questions.
It's 8 pages, and not from "Google University", so I do not want you to strain yourself, not that you will.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1
"You'd be surprised how many people write to me privately for medical advice"
This makes you a criminal, only a licensed MD can give medical advice.
BTW....tired of getting your butt handed to you yet?? LOL
So, though I doubt this was your intent, one way of interpreting what you've written here would be to say that my friend was 'ignorant' for educating herself about the vaccine and should have just let the doctor, who after all has many decades of training and experience, administer an inappropriate treatment. I realize that's probably not your intent, but that's how I read it the first time through. So, in your opinion, what's the line between being an informed patient taking appropriate responsibility for your own care and being an 'educated' ignoramus?
"One is the policy of the DEA in filing charges against doctors who they believe "over-prescribe" pain medication. That makes some doctors reluctant to prescribe the most powerful pain medications even though they know those medications exist and they know they would be helpful."
Bingo. While I won't claim to be "educated" on pain-management, I am thankful that my doctors have been. One of my uncles, an anesthesiologist, has talked about this being a prime reason doctors are afraid to properly treat their patients - the DEA being overzealous in prosecuting doctors simply trying to alleviate pain.
My mother has a steel plate in her back and had what they termed a "failed fusion" of two vertebrae in her back along with a host of other health problems too numerous to get into here. Suffice to say, she's on methadone and morphine for pain - has been for almost 20 years. Thank God, too, because otherwise, she's confined to a wheelchair and can't walk.
This is the *one* area where I am wary of government involvement in healthcare - non-doctors making medical decisions, or worse, DEA agents being even more "vigilant" against doctors involved in proper pain management. Yes, my mom is "addicted" to opiates - but if the alternative is a life not worth living, I'd say it's a small price to pay.
Aside from the tangent I went off on, you're right. Another thing to be wary of are self-proclaimed health experts. I went to school for nutrition and exercise physiology; I still go to my family MD (and take his advice) regarding vaccines, etc.
Thus far, by the way, I've had three vaccines - seasonal flu, pneumonia, and H1N1. No side effects from any of them from what I can tell. Ergo, due to my personal experience, I can claim now that all vaccines are perfectly safe.
I'll let you know if I start to become autistic.
:)
"Further, as our family physician notes, those who don't have their kids vaccinated are relying on those who do to prevent their moppets from succumbing to a serious illness."
That's both the irony and the tragedy. Vaccine rejectionists can afford to indulge in non-scientific fantasies because the chance of being exposed to deadly diseases is low ... only because most people are vaccinated. It is tragic because in their foolishness, vaccine rejectionists risk not only the lives of their own children, but the lives of children whose parents have taken every possible step to protect them.
"the DEA being overzealous in prosecuting doctors simply trying to alleviate pain."
When my father was dying, I had a very difficult time making sure that he got adequate pain medication. The doctors and nurses let their fear of prosecution blind them to suffering.
"I'll let you know if I start to become autistic."
Great! I'll be waiting to hear!
I agree with Mishima in regards to not so smart physicians. My 'education' comes from talking to a breed of doctors and practitioners who have gotten me results, and take a look at the whole picture.
Medical 'expertise' is limited to that which can be double blind placebo tested, which is why I can't take so much that is said seriously. I had a doctor once (neurologist) tell me that what I ate wouldn't make any difference because I had MS. I find that kind of attitude and dismissal of a general 'healthy diet' being beneficial appalling. No I didn't see him again.
Crazy me had my baby at home too, best experience I ever had. It was something about how we have really high maternal death rates for a developed country while having the highest rate of c-sections that led me in that direction. We like to think that our medicine is so advanced, but it doesn't add up. Our life expectancy is significantly lower than most other developed countries.
I could go on, but I'm thinking I should just go write an article probably, from the my perspective as a mom with Multiple Sclerosis.
These highly-trained medical professionals are not just making it up in their "socially constructed worlds" that vaccine manufacturers have legal immunity from side-effects from their product.
They aren't just making it up that large populations have never been given so many vaccinations in a single year before.
The nurses of New York State didn't just imagine almost losing their jobs (and simultaneously their constitutional rights) for rejecting vaccination.
I think this article is little more than an attempt to marginalize a deeply concerned segment of the medical profession.
"stop talking to the rest of us like we're dumbshits or worse. "
But you are. You don't have even the vaguest idea what you are talking about, yet you and your compatriots continue to proudly babble nonsense.
I really haven't had to demonstrate the ignorance of vaccine rejectionists. They have willingly demonstrated it for everyone to see. This comment thread is a perfect example.
I can understand lack of knowledge. What I cannot understand and abide is people who make no effort to learn, think they are geniuses for attending Google University, and risks their children's lives because they are ignorant and gullible ... and proud of it, no less.
"It's 8 pages, and not from "Google University", so I do not want you to strain yourself, not that you will."
Of course it's from Google University. Can't you tell the difference between The New Yorker and a scientific journal?
"I work every day with medical professionals who are deeply concerned with the safety of H1N1 vaccinations and the legal ramifications of administering them. Many of them, including myself, have rejected it."
In other words, you work with nurses, who don't even know basic immunology. Scary, isn't it?
"Medical 'expertise' is limited to that which can be double blind placebo tested,"
That's factually false, and indicates a complete lack of understanding of statistics.
That's not surprising. Vaccine rejectionists don't have the most basic knowledge of immunology, virology or statistics. The most amazing thing, though, is that they don't even seem to be able to understand why that matters.
Actually I work with some of the best doctors in Canada spanning a broad range of specializations (including immunology) and many of them are extremely concerned with the safety and administration of vaccines, particularly the H1N1 vaccine.
Your comment to me only validates my idea that you are just attempting to marginalize a very real and concerned segment of the medical profession.
We won't be bullied by "experts" like yourself Dr.Amy.
You shouldn't rely on what anyone thinks. You should make the decision based on the scientific evidence.
I bet those doctors and specialists that jason420 works with ARE basing their DECISIONS on scientific evidence.
But, of course, Amy feels the need to try and "prove" her opinion is right by belittling everyone who disagrees with her.
Exactly. A decision should be based upon the facts.
A fact is that GlaxoSmithKline is given legal immunity to any side-effects of the vaccine. Our countries have therefore given legal immunity to a company that depends upon the existence of sick people. The fact New York State nurses almost lost their jobs for refusing needles from the State. The ingredients of the vaccine, adjuvants, having previously been banned in my country (Canada) are now suddenly safe.
"A fact is that GlaxoSmithKline is given legal immunity to any side-effects of the vaccine."
ALL vaccine manufacturers are given legal immunity because they wouldn't make vaccines otherwise. There's not much money to be made from vaccines and we know that vaccines will leave a very small, but dependable number of children brain damaged or dead.
The only people who appear to be unaware of the real dangers of vaccination are vaccine rejectionists. They are so busy making up "dangers" that they can't be bothered to learn the facts.
And that's OK in your eyes, and yo ucan still sit there and say that vaccines are safe? One child left with brain damage or killed by a vaccine is too many for me.
La Captiana13:
"One child left with brain damage or killed by a vaccine is too many for me."
We can't all live in Magical Christmas Land.
Many of the negative responses here reflect a sense of entitlement to authority justified by either:
1. glib moral/democratic platitudes
2. "whitecoat overlords can't brainwash me" paranoia
Indeed, attitude is NOT everything. (@ LadyMiko)
Go science!
And not hurting people. And not stealing. And respect for decades (centuries?) of hard work by thousands of data collectors and critical thinkers. And math.
Clowns to the left, theives to the right, what is a level-headed student of the history of science to do? Just relax and be yourself!
I have reasons for why I don't believe in vaccines (and none are the ones that you listed), and furthermore, they are NONE of your business. I don't take meds OR vaccines, and I'm sick FAR LESS than those who take one or both and who don't eat right and who don't exercise regularly. I have the right to do what I want with my body, and no one is telling me otherwise.
So, please stay the fuck out of my face, and stop labeling me.
For those of you that think vaccines are safe and scientifically proven, I challenge you to listen to some one, Dr Russel Blaylock, who has spent about 30 years dedicating his life to this very topic. You might not be able to hold on to your belief after viewing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq2YVnwEnBw
However, I'm sure you'll agree that there's an opposite extreme: People who know absolutely nothing and have no desire to educate themselves beyond what their doctor bothers to tell them. A great example is my late parents. My last conversation with my mother, 20 years ago, had her gasping into the phone as though she had just run around the block rather than walking across the room. She complained of her lack of energy and blamed it on the shingles she'd been dealing with for months. A week or so went by and then my father called -- they lived 500 miles away -- to advise that Mom was in the hospital. Diagnosis? "Edema," said my dad, sounding the word out carefully since he had never heard it before. "Edema?" I asked him. "That's not a diagnosis. That's a symptom. What's causing her to swell?" I could practically see him shrugging his shoulders. Since the doctors hadn't explained it to him, he had thought it unseemly to ask, and simply accepted the highly inadequate one-word presenting symptom, tossed off by busy staff members.
After she died, my father was heartbroken and further confused by the meds he was taking (he had advanced colon cancer but refused to even speak the word, as was typical of his generation). He showed me Mom's death certificate, with the abbreviation "ASHD." I asked him about it; he waved his hand and said "What do I know?" as though this were a suitable answer. Fortunately, he had a visiting nurse, who clarified arteriosclerotic heart disease after the briefest glance at the certificate. Understanding what had really killed my mother made it so much easier to deal with than my dad's assumption that his wife, a three-pack-per-day smoker, had been mysteriously "taken away." It also helped a few years later when my boss exhibited that same gasping, and I asked her if she'd had her heart checked. She felt bad enough to make an appointment, but before anything could be done, she had a full-blown heart attack. She came back later, much improved, and said "How'd you know?" I told her about my mom. The point to this long tale is that while I have very little formal education, personal experience and a bit of intuition did much more for my boss than my dad's head-in-the-sand, doctor-knows-best attitude did for him. I'm sure you will agree that patients do themselves a favor to at least acquaint themselves with the basics. This is not a presumption of education on their part, or a dismissal of the average doctor's achievements. It's simple common sense that fills in the gaps.
And it is far better than infectious diseases such as whooping cough, measles (both kinds), polio, small pox etc. make a return in the absence of vaccines, potentially killing millions of children, than ONE child die because of an adverse reaction? Interesting logic, given that children die every day from starvation, neglect, abuse, preventable accidents and accidental deaths.
Your haste to race to the bottom with "fuck you" and a refusal to support your position in any way tells me exactly what kind of person you are -- the kind who pretends to care about others, but really only cares about themselves.
So there you have it. You admit that if vaccine manufacturers were not granted privileges putting them above the Law, these manufacturers would not otherwise make vaccines.
What does this tell you??
You don't have to graduate from Harvard to know that when human beings put themselves above the Law corruption closely follows.
"What does this tell you??"
I tells me that you don't know about the law, either. I already was aware that you don't know immunology, virology and statistics and you don't think it really matters. I presume that you also think it doesn't matter that you don't understand the law.
"We can't all live in Magical Christmas Land."
Exactly! It's a shame; it would be wonderful to live in the land of magical thinking where merely eating right guarantees a life of good health.
Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU school of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. For the past 24 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice for 2 years. He retired from his neurosurgical practice to devote full time to nutritional studies and research.
Dr Blaylock has written and illustrated three books. The first book was on the subject of excitotoxins (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills) and how they cause neurodegenerative diseases of the nervous system. His second book, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, covers the common basis of all diseases, nutritional protection against diseases of aging, protection against heavy metal toxicity, the fluoride debate, pesticide and herbicide toxicity, excitotoxin update, the vaccine controversy, protection against heart attacks and strokes and contains a special section on nutritional protection against terrorism. His third book, Natural Strategies for The Cancer Patient, was released in April, 2003 and discusses the ways to defeat cancer, enhance the effectiveness of conventional treatments and prevent complications associated with these treatments. In addition, he has written and illustrated three chapters in medical textbooks, written a booklet on nutritional protection against biological terrorism, has an e-booklet on radioprotection (Nuclear Sunrise) and has written and illustrated a booklet on multiple sclerosis. In addition he has written over 30 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.
Ok Emma Peel....please do us all a big favor and go pull up amy's credentials, since she won't provide them. Then let us all see just who has more credibility to address these issues that are being discussed on these threads. As you told me in an earlier post, put up or shut up! Shall we hear from you again my dear?
http://www.generationrescue.org/blaylock/blaylock-bio.htm
Just a little helpful advice: if your source is a YouTube video, the guy is a quack.
So tell me, being an OB makes you more qualified then a neurosurgeon. Have you spent the last 25 years pouring over clinical studies? Written any books at all? Have you written ANY scientific papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals?
The fact is amy, your a wanna be. You can only dream of having the kind of credentials this man has. Instead, you troll around on a web page spouting off drivel at anyone that doesn't agree with you. You are really just a shallow, sad, pathetic person. I actually have pity for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=Amy+Tuteur+MD&fulltext=Search&ns0=1
Russel Blaylocks page on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock
No wonder no one can find any credetials on you, there doesn't seem to be any, or at least none worth any note at all. Sad actually. Have you found anything yet Emma Peel?
And you DO “know about the Law”? You said in your article that if someone is a "layperson" the things they say about a subject like Medicine (or Law) is by default “a stream of absolute nonsense”. It would follow that what Dr.Amy says about the Law is “a stream of absolute nonsense” because Dr.Amy didn’t do “four years of college, four years of (Law) school, 3-5 years of hands on training for 80+ hours per week, countless textbooks and intimate knowledge of the relevant (Law) literature”.
What I do know for facts, whether medical, political, or philosophical, all to point to the idea that taking the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous and I know for a fact that I am not alone in thinking this.
Jon Harris left a comment which was intelligent, succinct, respectful, well thought out and completely non-aggressive. The fact that you could not even respond to this one person with respect speaks volumes about you.
As for scripts and over the counter meds, I have NO reason to take those, so I don't... unlike the majority of our "sheeple" society mentality that thinks it's normal to constantly be taking meds for everything under the sun. I guess they get swooned in by all the script commercials that bombard the TV... even though they have a long running list of side effects that usually are worse than the problem one would take them for.
Furthermore, I don't trust allopathic medicine for chronic issues and see it as useful only in life threatening and emergency situations where there is no alternative. Most of the time, it only treats the symptoms, it doesn't look for the root cause in many cases, and it doesn't have a wholistic approach in its treatments. The same goes for vaccines.
So, before you try to judge what kind of a person I am, think about why I might object to the current medical status quo mentality in the U.S. I'm sick and tired of people telling me *why* I believe the way I do. Neither you nor Amy nor anyone else on this blog knows me and my motivations... so get off your high horse.
The "fuck you" was for someone trying to tell me why I reject vaccines. I really can't stand that.
I see there are many demonstrations of it in the comments.
Welcome to Science Blogs, BTW!