Vaccinations 2: Why we don’t trust medical advice
July 2, 2007
In a Arthur Allen Slate article called “ Why there’s no dispelling the myth that vaccines cause autism,” Arthur Allen explains people’s lasting suspicion about the safety of vaccinations thusly:
In rational choice theory, what appear to be crazy choices are actually rational, in that they maximize an individual’s benefit—or at least make him or her feel good…
[ * * * ]
Another explanation for the refusal to face facts is what cognitive scientists call confirmation bias…
[ * * * ]
Then, too, the material in discussion is highly technical and specialized, and most parents aren’t truly able to determine which conclusions are reasonable…
It’s because we’re gullible illiterates. Well, I’d like to suggest another possibility to Arthur Allen.
Those of us who have been paying more than cursory attention to medical care over the past half-century have noticed that medical science is often bad science. In the rush to approve, market, and sell drugs there have been a few real boo-boos. Thalidomide, the “perfectly-safe” morning-sickness pill springs immediately to mind. But in more recent memory there’s Fen-Phen, the weight-loss drug cocktail that, oops, also caused a rare disease of the heart valves. Or Vioxx and Celebrex, the pain killers that also caused heart attacks. These drugs all made it into widespread use before people realized the damage they were doing — despite the FDA’s dedication to drug safety.
Those of us choosing natural childbirth have done so in large part based on our suspicion that the medical model of childbirth actually creates the need for emergency births. Much of the knowledge of midwives — which is not only “handed down from generation to generation” but also based on careful and constant attention to the mother — has been simply discarded; and many medical interventions seem to be required to fix the problems created by previous medical interventions.
And what of those medical interventions? Common forceps birth, women prescribed diuretics to keep them from gaining “too much” weight during pregnancy, convenience cesarean sections, routine episiotomies. Now this is interesting: in order to prevent infection, doctors used to require a pubic shave. Some apparently still do, in fact, despite medical evidence demonstrating that pubic shaves increase chances of infection. Cytotec was routinely used to induce labor even though the FDA only approved it for treating ulcers. Here’s midwife Ina May on one observed use of Cytotec:
There is not even a manufacturer’s recommended dose for labor induction with Cytotec, which means that ob/gyns prescribing the drug choose their own dosage regimens, often based on factors having nothing to do with the mother’s or the baby’s safety. One group of ob/gyn researchers decided to place the entire 100-microgram tablet in women’s vaginas (the drug was tested in oral dosages to prevent ulcers) to induce labor, commenting that they selected 100 micrograms “because of the ease of accurately obtaining such a dose.” … While they were correct that it is sloppy to cut tablets into halves and quarters, their decision to prescribe the 100-microgram dose at all seems incredibly cavalier — especially given the reports of worrisome maternal or fetal symptoms at half or a quarter of a 100-microgram tablet that had been published prior to this study. [ Ina May's Guide to Childbirth ]
Medical science often seems to be messing around in places it doesn’t understand, and often speak with more certainty than is actually warranted.
Our disbelief in medical claims is further exacerbated by the fact that medical research, medical practice, and drug production are all lucrative for-profit ventures. Large corporations aren’t known for putting their humanity over the desire to make profits, and considering the almost non-existent regulatory regime we’re currently in, government provides little check on medical claims and practice. And in “tort reform,” there’s all-out war on the only remaining check of corporate authority and consumer voice.
Now, thimerosol may be perfectly safe, even in the significantly higher amounts we’re exposing children to. Arthur Allen is right that the medical research is hard to understand. But medical research and medical practice have both proven themselves to be highly suspect as well. Too frequently for comfort, we learn that a common procedure we all needed for health and safety turns out to be more dangerous than the condition we’re supposed to be treating or preventing. And there’s a lot of clear motive for keeping other scary reversals — like “oops, thimerosol isn’t safe after all” — out of the public eye. All you need is pharmaceutical companies anxious about lawsuits and a government eager to keep them afloat; the Bavarian Illuminati and space aliens aren’t needed, accusations of “conspiracy theories” aside.
So why does the myth of thimerosol persist? Because we don’t trust medical companies or our government to tell us the truth. Given the historical record, I think that’s perfectly justified.
Posted in 
content rss
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
You should also check out the fact that lots of FDA higher-ups mysteriously end up on the boards of major pharmaceutical companies with hefty paychecks after they leave the FDA. That doesn’t exactly foster confidence in its decisions.
My pregnancy has become very medically involved, but hopefully for the better. The pregnancy specialist I saw last week gave me some interesting options, but clearly stated that she was obligated to offer them up, and I was free to choose what I wanted. The “triple” test I took indicated a slightly higher chance of Down’s Syndrome, but she was completely with me on the fact that amniocentesis can cause miscarriage, and she freely admitted that many of the results from that test are a false positive. I’m not sure why pregnant women need to give their blood for a faulty test, but the “Explanation of Benefits” from my insurance company tells me that the test costs an enormous amount of money. In order to get out of that test, they make you fill out an insane amount of paperwork absolving them from blame, etc. It was easier just to get the damn test, then ignore the results.
I’m trying to be as informed and careful as humanly possible, but if you have to be as medically involved as I am forced to be, you need to choose your doctors carefully. I have that luxury, but many others don’t. Doctors routinely use drugs for purposes they weren’t intended for, and prescribe drugs like statins that say right on the ads that they haven’t been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attack. It’s pretty crazy. You have to be an informed consumer who asks lots of really annoying questions.
Sorry this is so long. I’ve got time on my hands right now!
July 4th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Shiver! Yes, when laid out in such a straight-forward manner, the ills of medicine are chilling! So many unneeded, undertested and unsafe medication and treatments.
Though it’s been quoted too many times before, Dr. Gary Null’s bit from 2004 that “The total number of iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures] deaths shown in the following table is 783,936… The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.” Is certainly worth thinking about.
Yay! Death and illness, and at such good prices! Even if this is causing pain and suffering, at least someone is making some money off of it.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for taking this on. It’s a serious - and seriously scary - subject. Allen’s article seems so dismissive, and even of a “toxin” theory in general, which seems ridiculous to dismiss out of hand given the tremendous & increasing chemical body load all of humankind has been absorbing, especially since phthalates hit the scene. What’s sad is that he doesn’t devote many sentences specific to the scientific method, and how many ways one could frame a cause/effect sort of study. Instead, he seems to want to make suffering parents out as people driven by emotion and medical voodoo.
Chemicals can “evolve” living things… but try talking about that in a political climate where the very concept of evolution is suspect?!?
The FDA is great in theory, but I seriously doubt that appropriate research to discover the true and long-term results of certain drugs and additives that one carries for a lifetime are being undertaken. It’s one thing if you’re talking about a cancer drug for use late in life that could give someone a few more years. Entirely another if you’re talking about chemicals that will be in your body for 20, 30, 50 years or could permanently alter your body at a very early age.
Companies fund research to support - and ONLY support - their products and any potential alternate uses they can get their hands on, and they are increasingly getting their funds tied into academic research as well. Hardly objective. So I’m not sure why anyone would expect citizens and consumers to have any faith in companies, “official” research or the FDA.
Not to muddy the issue but, along these same lines, I’ve been interested in the artificial sweetener debates that may or may not be establishing links to increased rates of lupus and alzheimer’s, particularly in the young. Personally, I’m tryiing to cut ALL of this stuff out of my diet, but it’s becoming more and more difficult… you wouldn’t believe how much this stuff is showing up, if you look at food labels. Anyway, aspartame - one of the biggies - was created by a company acquired by Monsanto. The same people who helped wedge open the door to patenting genes. So I do I think this subject is likely to get the objective research attention it deserves? Uhhhhh….. No.
Also interesting — to watch the hype behind the HPV vaccine. I have no doubt that it would be great for fewer women to end up with cervical cancer. But the initial crew of human trials are still being followed for four years following their third shot. And there’s a LOT of talk about making the vaccination mandatory for women… and this would make Merck (the market leader) and GlaxoSmithKlein a tidy bit of cash. Interestingly, here are Arthur Allen’s views on the HPV vaccine, and yes he’s kind of a dick about how he presents those views:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-allen/the-hpv-vaccine-debate_b_51542.html
FYI, vaccines are apparently the new black in the drug industry. If Allen keeps it up, I’m sure he’ll be able to upgrade to a porsche and a yacht in no time:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/30/news/companies/vaccine/index.htm
July 8th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Speaking of “toxin theory”, I came across some scary information regarding plastics and how truly unsafe many of them are. Apparently we can’t trust any industry out there. The supposedly safe plastics used in thousands of products leach chemicals into our systems. Great.
http://www.bisphenolafree.org/
I’ve discovered that I’ve been drinking my water out of unsafe plastic cups for the past several years, and of course that concerns me, seeing as I’m pregnant with twins. I’m switching back to my good old glass tumblers for the duration. Hopefully I didn’t do any permanent damage. On the plus side, I discovered this information just in time to keep me from registering for Dr. Brown bottles, which are made of the unsafe plastic. Most baby bottles aren’t labeled for recycling, so I’m relying on the list at the above website. I found a site with a good alternative: they use safe plastics and also sell good old fashioned glass baby bottles.
http://www.newbornfree.com/pics/bornfree/bf1.htm?gclid=CIPOoOr0lo0CFSQYZAod9T9-6A
This whole thing reminds me of the “margarine is better than butter” situation before we discovered the dangers of trans fatty acids. “New and improved” is often “costs our company less and isn’t well tested”.