Archive for the 'General Commentary' Category
January 7th, 2010 by Trisha Torrey
A couple of weeks ago I posted a flu vaccine commentary and poll after listening to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio. He was talking about people who refuse to get vaccinated. He made the comment that vaccines have been proven effective for decades, and he’s tired of trying to defend them. That if people refuse to get vaccinated, and die — well — that’s just a way to clean out the gene pool.
Readers of the post took offense, calling me arrogant and ignorant. Among them are people who are truly afraid, people who are allergic, people who feel as if they have done their due diligence and have dismissed vaccines (empowered patients!) — and conspiracy theorists.
I wrote a follow up post, citing highly credible sources for all to see, showing why I believe flu vaccines are so important. The bottom line is that the flu is dangerous — both the H1N1 swine flu and the seasonal flu are killers. Vaccines are the only defense we have today (who knows – maybe we’ll have something better in the future?) And the statistics tell us that we have a 591% better chance of dying from the flu than we do dying from the flu vaccine. You don’t have to be a Las Vegas gambler to understand those odds.
I am actually VERY pleased that so many people have given researched thought and consideration to the question – even the ones who disagree with me. However — I must say — I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with the flu vaccine conspiracy theorists…. seriously. And if you are one, I say to you — get a life!
Here are the conspiracy theorists’ arguments. They remind me of a saying I heard many years ago — “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.” Further – they have violated the first rule of questionable healthcare practices, and that is – Follow the Money.
Here are some of their lines of reasoning, and my comments:
1. Flu vaccine is only produced to make pharmaceutical companies richer. To that I say — don’t be silly. For the cost, personnel and too tiny profits to be made by producing vaccine, pharmaceutical manufacturers would much prefer to put their efforts into producing something that actually makes a worthwhile profit for them. Included is the manufacturing are symptoms relievers — far FAR more profitable in the long run. Why would they want to prevent an illness at very little profit at the expense of bigger profits from medicine that could relieve or fix us?
2. Flu vaccines were developed from African Green Monkeys - and the real intent is to eradicate the population of the earth! This one gets the “give me a break” award on so many counts… First… if the government wanted to eradicate the entire population of the earth, they could do it FAR more efficiently by using, oh, say anthrax or dengue fever – or some other killer. Why would they go to all the trouble to develop something that actually took science? Why not a shortcut, and something cheap to do it?
3. And then I have to ask – why would the government (which government anyway?) want to eradicate the world’s population? If the government eradicated the world’s population, then who would be left to govern? and who would be left to pay taxes to that government? and who would be in charge anyway? (because the government is comprised of people who would get sick, too)…. etc etc….
Sorry — but these theories are just plain laughable. You want a conspiracy? I think there’s a conspiracy to make me waste my time looking these things up — because I do my due diligence, unlike some of my readers.
Here’s the deal — I understand that not everyone wants to be injected with flu vaccines, and even that some must avoid vaccines because their bodies cannot tolerate them. However — for the great majority of us (GREAT majority) — flu shots will keep us healthier — and will keep our loved ones and those around us healthier — than not getting flu shots will.
Further — as reasonable people, we need to understand that unless we have a real concern about negative effects of vaccines, we must accept responsibility for passing possibly deadly flu on to others when we don’t get the flu vaccine. H1N1 or seasonal — they are both killers. I’m not willing to be responsible for making someone else sick, nor chancing that they could die. I would not be able to sleep at night.
Do you?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSS | TIPS | NEWSLETTER | FACEBOOK | TWITTER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
August 31st, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
I’ll begin this post by saying that I understand the basics — that many parents of children with autism believe that autism was brought on by vaccines. And that scientific research has over and over again proven that link does not exist.
Then I watched the Dateline / Matt Lauer interviews and exposé, A Dose of Controversy, about where that suggestion came from, profiling Andrew Wakefield, the doctor/scientist who first suggested that link existed, and who is now hailed a hero by many of those parents who still believe in the connection. Also interviewed were two more major players in the argument – Brian Deer, a British journalist who has exposed Wakefield over and over again, and Dr. Paul Offit, infectious diseases expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has written a book called Autism’s False Prophets which lambasts Wakefield’s work.
Matt Lauer pulled no punches in his questioning of any of the three. It’s very clear that the worshipping behavior of these parents who believe that somehow Andrew Wakefield represents the second coming is misplaced. But even more than that – it’s very easy to see how we observers must use the follow the money rule on all three of these men. Perhaps an even bigger lesson has to do with LISTENING.
But we also must remember in the midst of this — that many studies (I can’t find a number, but it was suggested there were at least dozens) — studying, literally, MILLIONS of children — have proven every time (not just some, but every time) that an autism-vaccine link DOES NOT EXIST. Even The Lancet, a highly respected medical journal, the one which originally published Andrew Wakefield’s article about that link, has stated that they never would have published it if they had known how Wakefield’s work had been funded (see below.)
Follow the money (FTM) — it’s the rule that helps explain a lot of the “why’s” in healthcare. Here are examples, as applied to the questions about autism:
FTM explains why Andrew Wakefield would continue asserting that the MMR vaccine causes autism — because he is/was paid in at least two ways to make sure that was clear. First, he was paid at least $750,000 by a company that developed a measles-only vaccine that could have been used as a substitute for the MMR. Now, under suspicion for other (unspecified) charges in his native England, he has set up an outpost in Austin, Texas (have to wonder about the wordsmithing there — Austin and Autism) — but is not licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Parents are paying thousands of dollars to have their children tested for certain gastrointestinal problems possibly related to autism, but it was unclear as to whether any children have actually been helped by Wakefield. Further, outside of parents talking about how wonderful he is, none seemed to be able to pinpoint exactly why — except that he listens.
(All other doctors of every stripe — please take heed of that — HE LISTENS.)
Brian Deer – his FTM is a bit easier to track. He is paid to do his investigating and writing, so finding a goldmine like Andrew Wakefield is job security. It should be noted that Deer also needs the money to defend himself legally. He has been sued a number of times by Wakefield — always unsuccessfully — Deer has always prevailed, able to prove that his allegations about Wakefield were accurate and defensible.
Dr. Paul Offit requires some FTM analysis as well. Beyond the income from his book where he alleges that parents have been scammed by Wakefield for more than 10 years, he is full-on supportive of vaccines – including the fact that he is the developer-inventor of one vaccine. So yes, he makes money as the developer of the vaccine, which seems to be unrelated to autism. Interestingly, he has an expense many would not ever think of — he is forced to pay for bodyguards, because some of those Wakefield supporting parents have threatened his life.
Here are some beliefs I hold, which affect my beliefs about this controversy:
- I absolutely believe each of these parents who has observed their children well enough to say “She was fine, then she got the vaccine, and something happened.” I don’t question that for a minute, because I do believe parents are THAT WELL tuned in to their children.
- I also know human nature well enough to understand why parents cling to any belief that would help them explain something that is otherwise not understandable. As humans, we all want to assign blame. It’s the reason we can’t cope with problems like Hurricane Katrina, or any other mother nature related catastrophe — because there’s really no one to blame. By clinging to the vaccine-as-perpetrator, parents have someone to blame, plus the bonus of a hero in Wakefield. (Plus making Jenny McCarthy a hero — another story for another day.)
- When people are desperate, like these parents with autistic children, they will go to extremes, even when those extremes don’t make sense. To so desperately believe in something that has been disproven in so many ways, and to be threatening the life of someone who truly makes sense — these are moves of desperation.
Combining those beliefs, and having done a brief FTM analysis – we have to look at some bigger picture questions, too. I provide no answers here — I’m just sayin’…
- So what if Wakefield and all these parents are right? What if the MMR vaccine DOES trigger something that causes autism? Maybe it’s not the vaccine itself — maybe the child happened to have eaten something that day, or has another very mild, asymptomatic virus or bacteria in his body — or ? It could be the vaccine in a combination with something else – I do know a genetic link is being studied, too.
- Even if there is a link — how does that change things for the parents whose children do have autism? It doesn’t mean there is a cure. You can’t subtract the vaccine from their bodies. So why would parents put so much energy into their hero-making – at the expense of taking time away from their own children to do it?
- Autism is a “spectrum disorder” — is it possible it’s not just one thing? Is it possible that even though the symptoms and some of the behaviors are similar, that these children really have different disorders — triggered by different things? Whose to say that some forms of ADHD, for example, aren’t really a part of that spectrum? I know there are many discussions of misdiagnosis among both autism and ADHD diagnoses….
Finally — I believe the bottom line here is the fact that NONE OF THESE PROFESSIONALS get the fact that the passion and desperation fuel this fire and that the people who feel the most maligned (the parents who believe in Wakefield) do so because they feel that he LISTENS.
And that is the bottom line for today’s very long-winded post. We all need to listen more because listening, then responding appropriately, will lend itself to compromise and understanding — no matter what the controversy.
I’m listening — what can you tell me that will help explain what I don’t understand?
July 29th, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
As Congress continues to struggle with healthcare reform, I suggest that there is one way to look at it that might make the arguments simpler than they currently are.
I see only two points of view. No matter who you are or what your interest in reform is, you fall into one of these categories:
Lives First
(Then Money)
or
Money First
(Then Lives)
“Lives First” people understand that lives are more important than money. Not that money isn’t also important. It’s just that they believe that aspects such as no insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, or making sure rewards are in place for innovation, or assuring access for everyone (everyone must participate) or making sure there is focus on health outcomes improvement — are more important than how reform will initially be paid for.
“Money First” people understand that controlling costs and reining in spending are more important than worrying about who gets what kind of options for care or access. They understand that yes, people die or get sicker (and more expensive) when they don’t have access, but that denying access to some means others can get better care. They tell the Lives First people that if money isn’t the first consideration, then it will mean rationing for all, as if that is something new. (A bogus argument, by the way, because rationing is already a part of our care.)
Some generalizations, although I realize there are exceptions:
The Lives First people are often people who have had their access challenged due to cost (or they have watched a friend or loved one who has desperately needed access and could not afford it.) I’ve been there. Although I had high deductible health insurance when I suffered my misdiagnosis, the co-pays were back breakers. I lost every penny I had in savings just trying to keep up — all for the privilege of proving the medical experts were wrong.
The Money First people are typically people who do have access, either because their employer subsidizes their health insurance or because they are already age 65 and older and have Medicare. They see reform as something that will impinge on their income because it certainly won’t get in the way of THEIR access. They don’t need to worry about other people’s lives. They only need to worry about their money. (I have to wonder about the Medicare recipients who think money is more important – do they have this conversation with their children?)
Based on that description, which do you think I am? There’s probably not much question in your mind — but this may surprise you: My husband and I have good healthcare coverage because he is retired from the Air Force and that gives us access to a government payment system for the rest of both our lives. Healthcare reform will end up costing us more money than we pay now, there’s no doubt. Based on my own generalizations, you might expect me to be a Money First person….
But of course, I am not. I hear from too many of those people who don’t have access, who have bankrupted because of medical needs, who work up to four or five jobs just so they can buy into a high deductible, catastrophic plan, just like I had. They get sicker, or they lose a loved one, not because the care wasn’t available, but because they could not afford it, or because they were denied care since they had no insurance.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand that money is an extremely important consideration in the debate. We need to be responsible about the money questions, and yes, I get the “don’t want to mortgage our children’s future” argument. I believe we need both points of view to hammer out the best approach.
But, if you are a Money First person, I ask you to consider that Lives First may be the more fiscally responsible approach. If we build a new healthcare system that assures access, even if it’s quite expensive to begin with, then over the longer term, we will be “building” a healthier populous — one that won’t need as much of the same kind of expensive access we have today. In the long run, the system will cost far less with healthier people who won’t have to go bankrupt just to get the care they need.
Ask yourself: What’s more important to you? And which profile is yours? I wonder if maybe you’ve even put yourself into the wrong category to begin with? Does this food for thought shift your thinking at all?
……………………………..
Do you have concerns about healthcare reform? Have a rumor or concern you want clarified? Pose it here and we’ll try to uncover the truth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSS | EMPOWERMENT TIPS | NEWSLETTER | TWITTER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July 9th, 2009 by Trisha Torrey
As predicted, the fearmongering, half truths and out-and-out lies about healthcare reform have begun in earnest. I received an email from a dear and respected friend yesterday and was appalled at the dis-information it contained.
So I’ve decided to share the email with you and show you where it is wrong and why you need to question anything you hear in these kinds of emails, blog posts and other pieces you may read.
The email, called SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS is printed here in its entirety. I’ve footnoted my responses below.
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada. It
took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States, we have medical evacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes. (untrue – see comment 1)
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed. (untrue - see comment 2)
Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada’s and England’s. (untrue - see comment 3)
I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama’s plans in other areas don’t scare you, this should! Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants!!
Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is
getting close or knows somebody that is. (true!)
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the “stimulus” Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. (untrue – see comment 4)
The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg (untrue - see comment 5) with the following statement:
Bloomberg: Daschle says “health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
(untrue – see comment 6)
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes. (true!)
Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level.
We have an election coming up in one year and nine months, and we have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable. Lets do this! (see comment 7)
Comment 1: Natasha Richardson fell and hit her head, and refused to be taken by ambulance to the hospital. No one can be treated if they don’t seek treatment. Yes, later her husband phoned for help, but by then it was too late. Could they have taken her by helicopter for help if she had been in the US? Maybe — but we will never know. This form of condemnation of Canada’s healthcare system is purely speculation. No matter what country anyone lives in, they won’t get care if they refuse help. News articles indicate that helicopters are available for transport in many areas in Canada, but not remote areas. That is true in the US, too.
Comment 2: I went straight to some doctors in the UK for this answer ( I network with many doctors in England on Twitter.) They assure me that there is no such policy. One even asked me “is that a serious question?”
Comment 3: I have scoured the Internet and can find no where where any bona fide news organization has reported that Mr. Obama has made any such statement. There are blogs, comments and editorials on some news websites, but no hard news anywhere that reports this statement or any statement like it.
Comment 4: The stimulus bill has nothing to do with quality of care or delivery of care. It does contain $57 billion for development of an electronic medical records system which will eventually cut the cost of care and will improve the safety and delivery of care. Will rationing take place? Of course it will. It already does. But that has nothing to do with the stimulus bill!
Comment 5: Bloomberg has never quoted Tom Dashle saying any such thing! I checked in with one of my favorite resources, Politifact and they spell out exactly how this rumor came to be.
Comment 6: In fact, that quote came from Betsy McCaughey in the form of a letter to the editor. And while I have admired Dr. McCaughey’s work in hospital acquired infections for many years, I believe she is WAY off base by making such a statement. Inflaming an already contentious argument does not help. (Update: McCaughey is truly going off the deep end, now making statements that the healthcare reform will will make it mandatory for Medicare recipients to go through required counseling to tell them how to end their lives sooner.)
Comment 7: Healthcare reform is going to happen. We can make it easier on ourselves by dealing in the truth, and helping the cause. Or we can make it far more difficult on everyone by fearmongering and inflaming. Sending an email full of half-truths, lies and speculation doesn’t help! If you truly want to get involved at the grassroots level, then I ask you to instead contact your local congress person and share your feelings about what is important to you.
Read more about the Senior Death Warrant at my About.com blog.
……………………………..
Do you have concerns about healthcare reform? Have a rumor or concern you want clarified? Pose it here and we’ll try to uncover the truth.
