What is “America”? Isn’t America it’s people? North America is a land mass, but it doesn’t need protection from Covid. Land masses neither get infections nor die.
Sure. I already pointed out the executive branch can directly implement policy. How did you miss that? Policy is also made by the legislative branch. And it is certainly made by the CDC. The President taking an action in no way changes the FACT the CDC formulates and implements policy. Do you think the CDC is lying on their website about their policy making authority? They could be I guess. They lie about all kinds of things. But in this case the evidence supports their claims. Would you like to present evidence they are not being honest about policy?
The smallpox vaccine is a good example of drug testing and peer review being worth a damn. At one point smallpox killed 400,000 Europeans a year and it is estimated to have killed 90% of the Natives in North America. Smallpox was invented by Erwin Jenner. He noticed milk maids who contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. From this observation he created the hypothesis that cowpox immunizes people from smallpox. Then he tested this hypothesis. The drug test showed inoculating people with cowpox gave them immunity to smallpox. Then his results were verified by peer review by the Royal Society. In 1980, the CDC classified smallpox as being completely eradicated
Amen! Here is a list of 26 vaccines used in the USA, along with variants. Succumbing to the ant-vaxx rhetoric is just plain dangerous, not just for individuals, but for America.
Curious about your lists. You’ve posted about a couple different lists but never provided a link. Got distracted by the polio claim the first time and forgot to ask for the list. Vaccines are certainly responsible for saving untold millions of lives. They are one of the best things humans have come up with. However, like with all things there are appropriate uses and inappropriate uses. The two types of poliovirus vaccines is one example where inappropriate use can result in unnecessary deaths. I’m curious as to whether influenza vaccines are on your list. While they definitely have appropriate uses as well, currently the US is using them inappropriately. When it comes to vaccines we can’t just say “vaccines are good, so if some is good more is better”. We have to practice what we preach and pay attention to peer reviewed studies that show us more isn’t necessarily better. And in some cases worse—as is the case of US influenza vaccination methodology. If we are truly interested in science based medicine we can’t succumb to the rhetoric that any criticism of vaccines is dangerous anti vaxxism. You have to be willing to pay attention to the actual science.
Woops!??! https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-list.html The OPV polio vaccine variant you mention was chosen for use for strong reasons. IPV is an injection. The lower expense and ease of use of OPV allowed it to be used in covering huge populations, including in places which have less well developed medical infrastructure. Of course, it also means that application costs less. IPV is the only polio vaccine used in the USA since 2000. We have the money, the medical system and the laws that allow this to be our direction. Saying the use of OPV was "inappropriate" is just plain ridiculous. I don't know of a way that flu vaccines are used inappropriately in the USA. The problem I see with your post is that it claims there are mistakes being made - mistakes large enough for anti-vaxers to jump on to spread their fear. There may be such mistakes, but you don't mention any.
Thanks for the list. Can you quote me saying use of OPV is always inappropriate? Or that it was inappropriate in the past? No, of course you can’t. I already clearly stated OPV is best when infection rates are high and IPV is best when wild type infections become less common than vaccine induced cases. The US was a little late in changing over. Some other countries have been as well. It’s just one example to show the importance of actually following evidence. I can give you other very detailed examples as well. Currently, our annual influenza vaccination for the entire population is inappropriate. I know you aren’t aware of it because the only way to learn about it is to read actual studies. You won’t find the information anywhere else. Annual population wide vaccination destroys the ability of the aged to benefit from influenza vaccination at all. Annual influenza vaccination decreases the efficacy of each subsequent influenza vaccination to the point the elderly have such disrupted antibody affinity maturation they are virtually unprotected by subsequent influenza vaccination in their old age when they need protection the most. I’ve posted pages and pages on this subject on PF but here’s a quick overview. https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135 Here is the definitions of VE and PM from the introduction. One identified possible mechanism for decreased effectiveness is reduced antibody affinity maturation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659679/ The data on influenza deaths among the aged confirms this. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407 And: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feeds.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/older-flu-deaths-rising.html?_amp=true The CDC doesn’t report 90,000-100,000 annual influenza deaths in their influenza reports. This is well documented in the literature as well, which can be provided if it’s not something you are aware of. Few are. The reason the CDC can’t acknowledge all influenza deaths from cardiovascular events is because it would decrease “faith” in vaccination. As I’ve said before, our current annual vaccination policy is a Ponzi scheme. There is no good way out at this point without either damaging the credibility of the CDC or eroding acceptance of further vaccination, or both. Estimates of deaths and infections allow enough wiggle room inreporting to keep the Ponzi operational. We are between a rock and a hard place—admitting to 90-100,000 more annual deaths from influenza induced cardiovascular events is harmful to vaccination acceptance and VEstatistics. Restructuring vaccination policy would at least initially cost lives. Actual reporting of infection and deaths based on PCR testing would be unthinkable in the context of cost and logistics before Covid. Now it’s an option but would takeaway the cover provided by estimates. Publicizing decreased VE harms vaccine acceptance and credibility. Basically any change of policy has multiple negative consequences nobody wants to face. Everyone “in the know” is praying new influenza vaccines will alleviate the problem before the Ponzi fails completely due to lack of vaccine naive candidates. I hope new vaccines will help as well. But current practice is inappropriate based on science. Another inappropriate use of vaccines in the US involves tetanus vaccination. It’s more of an ethical concern but driven by unwillingness to follow the most up to date science. I don’t know how deep you want to get into this as you seem concerned actual evidence will harm vaccine acceptance in some way. I’m certain it’s the opposite. The more the CDC etc. lie and omit information the less trust there is. I predicted the distrust of Covid vaccines and provided a path to avoid it. Unfortunately the things I predicted would harm acceptance weren’t avoided and my prediction came to be. Anyway, peer review is a good thing all things considered. Problems with peer review pale in comparison to the denial of science by consumers of peer reviewed research. That’s my main point here with vaccines. If we are going to claim adherence to evidence based medicine etc. we have to be consistent and actually follow the evidence.
The decline of efficacy of a medication that targets some form of biota does not mean it is a mistake to use it. In fact, ALL such medications have ALWAYS been declining in effectiveness, as biota of all types mutate to improve resistance. What you would need to do here is devise a new drug use policy that is different than what is used today. Just saying that how we use medication is a mistake doesn't solve anything at all. In fact, you would need to form some sort of agreement on what "mistake" means. Decisions to stop using our medications would obviously be expensive in lives.
Who said anything about stopping usage of influenza vaccines? The problem with annual influenza vaccination is it is given to young people who have the best chance of resisting infection and of surviving infection. Then when one is old and needs protection from vaccination they can no longer benefit from vaccination. It’s like giving everyone in the country insulin. It’s harmful to some demographics. When there is evidence a practice harms a demographic more than it helps continuation of that practice is a mistake. There are various strategies to correct this mistake. Targeting at risk demographics with vaccination and not annually vaccinating low risk demographics is the main way. I’m uninterested in strawman arguments like stopping usage. Nobody has said anything about that.
No, it is not like insulin. A flu vax does not harm you. Giving everyone a shot of insulin DOES do harm. Also, insulin does not affect others, while failing to vaccinate for flu means that there is more opportunity for flu to spread - including to immunocompromised populations. You are advocating stopping use for certain demographics, which is what I was pointing to. There are policies related to retaining efficacy of various medications. For example, there are efforts to reduce the amount of antibacterial drugs we take, as they are losing efficacy, making fighting infection more and more difficult. I don't know of any reputable policy center that is advocating that people not get vaccinated for the flu. There certainly are antivaxx sites that take that position. You have not supported your contention that it's a mistake to encourage people to get vaccinated for flu.
Annual influenza vaccination most certainly does harm. It suppresses your immune system’s ability to make antibodies with affinity for current and future flu strains. I’ve provided the evidence for that. Annual influenza vaccination decreases the efficacy of subsequent vaccinations so that by the time an individual is 65+ they no longer see reduction in mortality from subsequent vaccinations. The data and studies show this. I presented some of them. Want to guess who the most immunocompromised are? The aged! The ones who’s inability to benefit from vaccination was destroyed by annual vaccination when they were young with more robust immune systems. Before development of immunosenescence and chronic diseases of the aged that exacerbate influenza infection is not the time to destroy the immune system’s ability to respond to vaccination. Also, if you are concerned about reducing spread of influenza, having the aged without ANY protection from vaccination is the last thing you want. Not necessarily. Even going to a biannual schedule would help. I’m advocating for following the science and addressing the fact annual vaccination destroys the ability of the aged to benefit from vaccination. Yes, we certainly need to reduce usage of antibiotics, especially in young children/babies/toddlers. Efficacy is a concern, but far from the only concern. We are destroying their microbiota, especially gut microbiota that are essential to immune system health etc. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201116075732.htm If we should address the problems from over use of antibiotics based on data and studies, why shouldn’t we address the problem of over use of influenza vaccines as well? Both practices do harm. Why ignore one? Name a “reputable” policy center! I’ve explained why the US public health community can’t follow science. Because it would expose decades of fraud in reporting influenza deaths and in reported vaccine efficacy. I’m not familiar with anti vax sites so Will have tk take your word for that. I’m only concerned with the peer reviewed science—not anti vax propaganda or CDC propaganda. Neither are “reputable” if the don’t base their policy on peer reviewed science that clearly shows annual vaccination destroys the ability of the aged to benefit from influenza vaccines. What people? We can’t call it evidence based medicine if it pushes vaccination to the point it destroys a demographic’s ability to benefit from vaccination when immunosenescence is severely compromising innate immunity and natural adaptive immunity in that demographic. Would you be surprised to learn few countries encourage mass vaccination of healthy young and middle aged adults?
The point with antibiotics is that there IS an issue there, so action was taken by science based medicine. I don't see this happening for flu vaccines. If you have an issue with flu vaccine policy, there would be serious proposals for change made by the highly qualified policy arms of our medicine. I recognize that you don't like our science based medicine and the policies developed by it. I would point out that science papers that show a degradation due to use of some (all) of our medicines is only one input to making valid policy for such medications.
Yes, the same issue as we see with mass annual influenza vaccination. Harm to certain demographics. No. That’s the problem I’m pointing out. There are demographics being harmed. But that information isn’t public. And making that information public would expose the fact the CDC has been misreporting data on influenza deaths and vaccine efficacy. What highly qualified policy arms? Can you point to one? I don’t have an issue. I’m simply pointing out the fact current mass annual vaccination is harming the elderly. Not my opinion, just what peer reviewed science tells us. Why would you expect an agency that has been under-reporting influenza deaths by 90,000 to 100,000 annually to follow science in influenza vaccination policy? I LOVE science based medicine. But that’s not what you are supporting here. You are supporting medicine NOT based on evidence. You are supporting “medicine” that is in conflict with the evidence. That’s what I’m pointing out. You talk about the importance of evidence based medicine and peer reviewed studies but then reject actual peer reviewed evidence in favor of opinion and appeal to authority fallacy. First of all, you are operating on a false assumption. As humans age, in many cases they require a lower dose of medication over time. The idea “degradation” always occurs is not supported by evidence. In fact there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Second, the effect on the patient is what matters. If continued use of any medication is shown to do harm that outweighs the benefit in a demographic it shouldn’t be used in that demographic.
As I pointed out, we have a policy arm that is already making the kind of decision that you are concerned about - as shown by antibiotic use. I don't believe you have found a new policy that would be healthier for America - even just for the demographic you identified. The degradation I referred to doesn't have anything to do with the age of the patient or how long they as individuals have been medicated. As we as a world use antibiotics, some of the targeted bacteria survive. We are breeding bacteria that can withstand our antibiotics. That is, our antibiotics are becoming less able to win the battle with bacterial infection.
Yes, we have a “policy arm” making decisions that up until a couple days ago you didn’t “believe” made policy! On influenza vaccines they are making policy that conflicts with the evidence in the form of peer reviewed research on vaccine efficacy and senior cause of death rates. You keep referencing antibiotic resistance for some reason as if the fact it exists and is a concern somehow is an argument in support of mis-use of vaccines. What do you really know about antibiotic use and policy made by these shadow organizations you refer to but can’t identify? Let me tell you a bit about one genius policy (I deal with directly) set by these clowns. Antibiotic use in animals has been targeted even though doctors are still allowed to prescribe antibiotics unrestricted to people of all ages for viral diseases and allergies that are of course unaffected/untreatable by antibiotics. Chlortetracycline is an antibiotic that has been used by agricultural producers for a long time. It’s very effective at treating bacterial respiratory disease as well as bacterial pinkeye. Oral (in feed) delivery methods are stable, effective, and good at limiting treatment related stress for animals already under environmental stress. There are three common formulations for feed treatments in ruminants—the same active ingredient just different concentrations. One at 4 grams Chlortetracycline per pound of carrier feed, one 10 grams Chlortetracycline per pound of carrier feed, and one 50 grams Chlortetracycline per pound of carrier. Until a few years ago, none of these formulations were script. Any producer could go to the feed store and purchase what they needed. But a few years ago the shadow organizations you believe set this kind of policy decided to require a prescription written by a licensed veterinarian to purchase and use Chlortetracycline and many other antibiotics that historically hadn’t required prescription. So they made up a list of products and distributed the list to veterinarians, feed suppliers, drug companies, and ag producers. Imagine my lack of surprise when the 4 gram and 10 gram formulations of Chlortetracycline showed up on the list, but not the 50 gram formulation! So now if I need Chlortetracycline guess which I buy? The 4 or 10 gram formulations that require me to contact one of my veterinarians (taking up their valuable time as they are all overworked anyway), they have to write a script and send it to the feed supplier (who also has better things to do), or the 50 gram product that requires no extra time or expense to me or the people I do business with? I can have literal 1 ton pallets of 50 gram product delivered to my storage facilities any time I want. But if for some reason I decided I wanted 4 or 10 gram product I have to spend money and my time and the time of others to acquire it. This is the type of “policy” you think is addressing antibiotic resistance. In agriculture animal welfare and economics determine usage of these antibiotics anyway. People aren’t overusing them because it’s not economically advantageous to do so. They are used when necessary. And if someone wanted to mis-use them the current system is easily circumvented if one wanted to. Never mind actual research has been done that shows Chlortetracycline doesn’t negatively impact human antibiotic resistance anyway. In fact it’s use decreases use of classes of antibiotics used in both animal and human treatment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118930/ On the human use side of the equation have you ever thought about why antibiotics are over-used? It’s not because the evidence shows that use is beneficial to human health. Most inappropriate use is driven by financial incentives from pharma and by fear of litigation. And by bitchy consumers that need a placebo to make them happy when they have a cold. You can’t solve any of those problems by tweaking policy on appropriate usage. It requires sweeping reform in malpractice law and pharmaceutical advertising/promotion law. So in reality, no, antibiotic resistance isn’t being addressed. I’ve probably told you a hundred times I’m not interested in influencing policy. It’s a waste of time. What I can do is provide actual evidence produced through application of the scientific method to people interested in evidence based medicine. Then those individuals can make informed decisions about health and healthcare that lead to longer, healthier lives than they would enjoy following advice from organizations that don’t base their recommendations on science. You are welcome to “believe” whatever you wish. But I’ll stick to making decisions based on actual evidence, not on unsubstantiated opinions or based on appeal to authority (especially authorities known to be dishonest). Yes, as you can see I’m well aware of antibiotic resistance. But you claimed all medications decline in efficacy over time. That simply isn’t true. And your “beliefs” are incorrect again. Antibiotic resistance is definitely affected by “how long an individual has been medicated”. Long courses of antibiotics prolong selection pressure making development of resistance more likely statistically. Also, long courses have more negative impacts on non target microbiota that naturally suppress reproduction of target bacteria with resistance development potential. Time-of-course also matters on the other end of the spectrum. Too short of a course is less likely to kill all target bacteria, allowing those that are exposed to but survive the antibiotic to reproduce. Anyone who has ever taken an antibiotic as an adult should have been told this by the prescribing doctor. I’m really uninterested in what people “believe”. I’m only interested in leveraging actual peer reviewed science (evidence) into knowledge people can use to make good health and healthcare decisions.
The point is that we do have policy that is made with the facts concerning medications front and center - including when it calls for less use of those medications. I agree with this being a problem. But, it is exceptionally difficult to tell ranchers how they may raise their cattle. This is a common problem with all regulations related to issues with what we eat. We even have the right wing defunding the testing of produce for e. coli, when producers of vegetables WANT that testing. After all, if that shows up in food somewhere, it can cause all producers to lose serious dollars. One thing that HAS happened is that meat and poultry can be found with labeling that allows customers to make decisions. You have to remember that these policies are not set by science. They are set by those who control policy - including our legislature and presidents. I agree that this has a lot to do with doctors wanting to make patients happy. Another part of the problem is that it is not easy to determine whether an infection is viral or bacterial. The primary method we have is to wait for a period of weeks and guess that it is probably bacterial if it is still surviving. That is highly dependent on what patients report. All right, I'm not going to make more attempts at isolating issues from your long, long post. But, I WILL say that from the start you HAVE stated that you believe that flu policy is wrong. You can't now says you aren't. Also, all our antibiotics and vaccinations ARE subject to becoming weak over years of use. So, every year we have new flu vaccines. Plus, we are depending on pharmacology to find new methods of solving viral and bacterial infections. This is because these organisms mutate and advance in their ability to survive the solutions we have today.
No, the policy of mass annual vaccination for influenza is not based on facts. It’s based on lies about vaccine efficacy and influenza death rates. The problem I’m pointing out isn’t about telling people how to run their business. The problem I’m pointing out is the policy they have put in place addresses a “problem” that peer reviewed research shows isn’t a problem. And the policy makes you get a prescription for low concentration antibiotics but not high concentrations of the same antibiotic. It’s pointless regulation that does NOTHING to decrease antibiotic resistance. The point is the policy makers you put your unshakable blind faith in are known purveyors of disinformation and creators of policy known to be ineffective and even harmful as the study on Chlortetracycline I provided shows. I’m unaware of defunding produce testing. Do you have any information on that? Not really. There is no way to even tell what country beef and pork come from. It’s not required to state country of origin on labeling. Let alone how it was raised. At one point you claimed the CDC (HHS) were scientific institutions. But they do in fact write, formulate, and implement these policies. The legislature and President are not deciding, writing, or implementing policy regarding influenza vaccination etc. They just aren’t. It’s bureaucratic institutions like the HHS that do these things. And many of these policies are in direct conflict with evidence. From recommendation against N95 masks for Covid to annual influenza vaccination to adult boosters of tetanus vaccination—all are in direct conflict with science. Absolutely. But they should remember the creed of “first do not harm”. Well, PCR testing for influenza has been around for years. We don’t have to “guess” really if we test. There are now single PCR tests that differentiates between flu, Covid, and cold viral infection. Fever grades etc. can also be used to differentiate between viral and bacterial infection. But yes, a lot of times nobody cares. They write an antibiotic prescription to make some dough and cover their ass and send the patient home. A consequence of modern medicine focusing on treating symptoms more than preventing or curing disease. I get it. Actual information on how time periods of antibiotic treatments affect resistance development is tedious when it conflicts with your “belief”. Evidence based medicine isn’t short blurbs of “beliefs”. It involves a lot of information. Absolutely I stated the policy is inappropriate. I’m not saying it isn’t inappropriate now. I’m saying I have no interest in attempting to change it. Just point out it is not based on science and actually conflicts with science. Then you and others can decide if you want to follow science and be healthier, or follow public health institutions and be less healthy. LOL. Can you back that up with evidence? Let’s go with tetanus vaccination. Show me the evidence it’s becoming weak from years of use. You’ve repeatedly referred to “evidence”. Let’s see some. Please explain how antigenic drift and shift of influenza viruses is relevant to the information I’ve provided here? Depending on pharmacology is part of the problem. We focus on developing new antivirals to fight infection in immunocompromised obese people that destroyed their immune systems through lifestyle choices. We will spend billions of our own and other people’s money to enrich pharmaceutical companies but we are too chicken to tell those unhealthy people they are not only harming themselves but doing great harm to others as well with their lifestyle choices. There doesn’t seem to be much focus on controlling influenza or any other disease without a prescription pad. I had hoped with Covid rhetoric about taking actions to protect others that mantra would trickle down to obesity, diabetes, etc. but so far it hasn’t. For other diseases we just want to treat the symptoms and pretend they don’t affect others negatively.
Nuts. I was hoping to see some evidence to back up your “beliefs”! ….what third party readers can learn: Presentation of factual information on health based on evidence produced through application of the scientific method and controlled for quality and adherence to that method by process of peer review is “going wild” when it conflicts with unsubstantiated opinions. Wild indeed! The subject of peer review is interesting and a valuable discussion topic. Equally interesting is the phenomenon of staunch supporters of peer review disregarding peer reviewed research in favor of unsubstantiated opinions and appeal to authority.
I have been discussing both. Peer reviewed research shows current vaccination policy is not supported by peer reviewed evidence. Nothing to do with my opinions. I don’t have an opinion on the subject. I’m just pointing out the policies you defend conflict with peer reviewed research. I’m pointing out if health is your priority you should make decisions based on evidence validated through peer review, not based on unsubstantiated opinions or policy developed by known purveyors of disinformation.
Medications are pretty much always less than perfect, and thus an expectation of perfection is a mistake, not a falsification of policy. I haven't said anything in defense of current policy. But, any new policy would need to be fully defined and supported by serious investigation of what it would mean for the total population.
Just because a medication is “imperfect” doesn’t justify using it in a manner that peer reviewed studies show is harmful. Aspirin isn’t a perfect drug. But we don’t give it to hemophiliacs because it’s imperfect. Imperfection is no excuse for use shown to be inappropriate by meta analysis of peer reviewed studies. Current policy isn’t based on evidence. You have claimed if it was not correct the shadow policy making organizations you speak of would be speaking up about the problem. I took that as support. If not, my apologies.
The point is that there would have to be a proposed new policy that is then seriously vetted as our current policies have been. The new policy would probably need to be judged based on whether it was more effective in reducing the number of deaths due to flu. Policies do change from time to time. For example, the flu vaccine that people over the age of 65 receive is not the same as the one younger people get. How do your comments address the OP topic of peer review?
