Emperor's clothes exposed 28 October 2006
Nick Hardwick,
Consultant Dermatologist
Mid Staffs General Hospitals ST16 3SA
Send response to journal:
Re: Emperor's clothes exposed
Over the past few decades the practice of Medicine has moved from a
basis of personal experience and understanding of the disease process and
its treatment, towards the application of authorized protocols and
guidelines. The body of Medical knowledge is now so great that this has
many
advantages. Nevertheless, we do recognize the importance of in-depth
understanding, both in applying guidelines sensibly, and managing uncommon
conditions for which rigorous evidence-based recommendations are not
available.
Tom Jefferson's article raises concern about the situation in which an
inadequate evidence base has become canonised into established guidelines,
Government policy and incentivised practice. It takes a bold man indeed to
challenge this set of Emperor's clothes.
Perhaps we need a forum within which such nagging concerns can be
raised by lesser mortals in order to build up a sufficient groundswell of
opinion to challenge the court tailors.
Competing interests: None declared
Vested interests will always trump evidence 28 October 2006
GH Hall,
Retired Physician
EX1 2HW
Send response to journal:
Re: Vested interests will always trump evidence
5 years ago I asked my GP what the facts were about the pros and cons
of 'flu vaccination, and I was referred to the propaganda hand outs from
the
Department of Health. These were long on assertion and short on facts.
Perhaps unwisely I embarked on a literature search and running
correspondence with various civil service mandarins (including Sir Liam
Donaldson) with the limited ambition of getting data on what actual tests-
of efficacy and safety- were done on current vaccines and with what
results.
After much evasive action and stalling I was informed that such information
was confidential. The Lancet (2001:357:2141) published my scepticism about
the extra ordinary claims being made for the ability of 'flu vaccine to
prevent not only the 'flu but death as well, whatever the cause. Since then
there have been a few papers expressing concern about the inconclusive
nature of the evidence for its efficacy (1,2). On the other hand, there
have
been repeated exhortations to the public to "protect themselves." The
enormous expense of this futile exercise doesn't seem to register- partly,
I
fear, because of payment inducements offered to GPs. They, perhaps, may
claim they believed the recommendations of the DH and carried out the
vaccination programs in good faith. This "only carrying out orders" excuse
is of doubtful validity. There can be no excuse for the harmful public
health decisions and refusal to come clean about what precisely were the
reasons for their them. It is too much to hope for repentance and reversal,
however. The Faustean contract exemplified in the structure of the
Medicines
and healthcare products regulatory agency will see to that.
1.van der Wouden et al, Respiratory Medicine (2005) 99,1341-1349. 2.
Simonsen L et al, Arch Int Med (2005) 165, 265-272
Policy versus evidence: policy in the lead 29 October 2006
Peter Doshi,
Graduate student
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Send response to journal:
Re: Policy versus evidence: policy in the lead
In his 28 October review of the available literature, Tom Jefferson
finds that there is a "large gap between [influenza vaccination] policy and
what the data tell us."[1] What the data tell us, he writes, is that the
inactivated vaccines have "little or no effect on the effects measured" and
the comparative evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the vaccines are
safe.
Jefferson's results are consistent with previous epidemiological
reviews of the effects of influenza vaccination. A 2005 National Institutes
of Health review of over 30 influenza seasons "could not correlate
increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates
in
any age group" and concluded "observational studies substantially
overestimate vaccination benefit." [2]
Annually, public health agencies in the US and UK launch massive
campaigns aimed at convincing doctors of the importance of influenza
vaccination. Is this necessary? Safe and effective interventions for
diseases that truly pose a threat to morbidity and/or mortality are
unlikely
to be controversial. It is interesting to note here that not only is the
evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination
lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the
mortality burden of influenza. As I have documented previously, [3] the
mortality data is a mess--over the period in which CDC statistical modeling
of flu-associated mortality has estimated an 80% rise in deaths, officially
recorded flu deaths have dropped 30%. Complicating this is the fact that
influenza-like illness is not only indistinguishable from influenza, but
far
more common, leading to unrealistic expectations of influenza vaccination.
The policy questions raised by these reviews are crucial to answer.
While it is often said that influenza poses a serious burden to health,
influenza vaccines impose their own particular burden--to the tune of
billions of dollars annually. If policy is going to be driven by evidence,
this requires us, first of all, to consider the evidence.
References:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Gillen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Luisa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> "Richard Naef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leedslist"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [LU] Surely not......... Things to get you
> thinkingtwiceaboutthe flu jab
>
>
> I had a look at that site - it appears to me to be the medical
> equivalent of the Roswell/Alien Autopsy/Area 51 conspiracy theory sites.
> I read a little of what is said there (in particular the MMR section) -
> looks like another load of bollocks to me.
>
> Let me ask you a question. The majority of GP's in this country are hard
> working and caring for their patients. Yes, they (or rather the
> practice/partnership they practice at) receive a payment for
> administering the flu jab every year (but bear in mind this is payment
> for the extra work involved over and above the normal contracted work of
> the practice) - but do you honestly believe that thousands of GP's
> across the whole of the country are all involved in a conspiracy to use
> a useless and potentially dangerous vaccine on their patients, and yes,
> their own families and friends too? Of course not. Nor are these highly
> skilled and educated men and women being kept in the dark by some evil
> vaccine producer, they are perfectly capable of searching for and
> finding the facts themselves.
>
> I fear you are either greatly mistaken or dangerously gullible (In which
> case I need to prove who you are - could you send me you bank account
> details and you pin number please?) :-) - again, as I said on a previous
> post, I am not "having a go at you" merely questioning your information.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luisa
> Sent: 23 October 2007 17:59
> To: Richard Naef; leedslist
> Subject: Re: [LU] Surely not......... Things to get you
> thinkingtwiceaboutthe flu jab
>
> More on the dangers of flu jabs
> http://www.vran.org/vaccines/flu/flu-jefferson-06.htm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Naef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "leedslist" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [LU] Surely not......... Things to get you thinking
> twiceaboutthe flu jab
>
>
>> was this from the Daily Mail?
>>
>>> In one major study, 95 per cent of elderly people who were
>>> vaccinated developed pneumonia that year, and nearly one per
>>> cent died from the infection.
>>> In a study of healthcare workers, another target group for
>>> annual vaccination,
>>> 39 per cent died from pneumonia, despite having the flu jab.
>>
>> Even the most hardhearted would have noticed if 95% of elderly people
> who
>> had the jab developed Pneumonia or 39% of Health Workers DIED!!!!!!
>>
>> Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!
>>
>> ttfn
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list
> administrators
>> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of
> contributors.
>> Leedslist mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
>> 6 in a bloody row!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list
> administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions
> of contributors.
> Leedslist mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
> 6 in a bloody row!
>
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
6 in a bloody row!
