Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > Survival & Preparedness Forum > Manmade and Natural Disasters
Articles Chat Room Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files



Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2013, 02:00 AM
COM_AMG COM_AMG is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 1,746
Thanked 1,447 Times in 643 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

So many medical cowboys in this thread. For a survivalist forum, it's shocking how misinformed many people are regarding the flu vaccine. I hope the know it alls continue to enjoy good health via their anecdotal evidence. Science has other evidence that's just a bit more verifiable and convincing.

I laugh every time someone complains about "big pharma." Lmao. Research how many NEW drugs have been released in the past 10 years and why the number is so low (especially for antibiotics). Get your heads out of the sand peeps.
The Following User Says Thank You to COM_AMG For This Useful Post:
Old 01-08-2013, 04:17 AM
SnakeRanch's Avatar
SnakeRanch SnakeRanch is offline
Rhodesia WAS Nice...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: N. Calif.
Posts: 3,418
Thanks: 965
Thanked 4,070 Times in 1,773 Posts
Default

Here's another vaccination all children should get. Beats dying of cancer...
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...nfections.html
Old 01-08-2013, 06:01 AM
Vectorwoman's Avatar
Vectorwoman Vectorwoman is offline
One of YHVH's sheep
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 13,973
Thanks: 26,083
Thanked 21,710 Times in 8,585 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Bears View Post
Carefully dispose of that Mercury containing CFL Bulb but inject yourself and loved ones with 250X the EPA Safety Limit For Mercury to prevent Flu?
Over a 10 year period, it is possible to exceed the limit by 2500 times simply by receiving a yearly flu shot.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/10/10...-safety-limit/

Vaccines weaken the immune system'

http://www.naturalnews.com/038583_va...ne_system.html

Innate Immune Dysfunction is Associated with Enhanced Disease Severity in Infants with Respiratory Syncytial Virus Bronchiolitis. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2012
Cynthia Cournoyer, 'What About Immunizations?', Dennis Nelson Publishers, 1991
http://www.naturalnews.com/035871_va...ion_myths.html

Study: 97 percent of children affected by 2009 mumps outbreak were vaccinated for condition

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038583_va...#ixzz2HKP1zI8F
With all the aluminum added to our foods now days, and the reaction that mercury has w/ aluminum; I wonder what the combo does in our body.

The Following User Says Thank You to Vectorwoman For This Useful Post:
Old 01-08-2013, 09:23 AM
allye's Avatar
allye allye is offline
variable
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: deep in the heart of dixie
Posts: 1,191
Thanks: 6,602
Thanked 2,591 Times in 837 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
The Cochrane review is in essence a opinion based on a review of previous studies and it does not really add much to the debate.
Review means just that. Literature reviews are an accepted, valuable form of scientific articles (as evidenced by their inclusion in peer-reviewed publications as well and citations by scientists carrying on further primary research).

Here's a good explanation of the literature review article:

http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/inst...re-reviews.pdf

A “literature review” reviews the scholarly literature on a specific topic by summarizing and analyzing published
work on that topic.
A literature review has several purposes:
to evaluate the state of research on a topic
to familiarize readers and students with what has already been done in the field to suggest future research directions or gaps in knowledge


Quote:
But they end with a Caveat that draws a conclusion based on supposed bias of who did the study I see no displayed evidence of this claim. So for them to claim to be a evidence based outfit I draw the opinion that something is not kosher.
The "supposed bias" they're pointing out is medical research paid for by pharmaceutical companies. It's a serious flaw in medical research, especially in the US.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...teven-e-nissen
Old 01-08-2013, 10:47 AM
MattB4's Avatar
MattB4 MattB4 is offline
Baal Sheeple
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,604
Thanks: 12,356
Thanked 14,410 Times in 5,458 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by allye View Post
..
The "supposed bias" they're pointing out is medical research paid for by pharmaceutical companies. It's a serious flaw in medical research, especially in the US.

...
If the pharmaceutical companies did not do the research there would be no new drugs. The government can not afford to. Plus the people trust the government less than the pharmaceutical companies. Universities do much of the research using unpaid students to experiment on. Not to mention unpaid researchers looking for doctorate material.

So it is not a serious flaw. You just need checks and balances such as double blind testing. You will never see a alternative medicine pusher subject their magic potions to a scientific double blind test. They know what the outcome would be. Loss profits.
Old 01-08-2013, 11:11 AM
allye's Avatar
allye allye is offline
variable
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: deep in the heart of dixie
Posts: 1,191
Thanks: 6,602
Thanked 2,591 Times in 837 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
If the pharmaceutical companies did not do the research there would be no new drugs. The government can not afford to. Plus the people trust the government less than the pharmaceutical companies. Universities do much of the research using unpaid students to experiment on. Not to mention unpaid researchers looking for doctorate material.

So it is not a serious flaw. You just need checks and balances such as double blind testing. You will never see a alternative medicine pusher subject their magic potions to a scientific double blind test. They know what the outcome would be. Loss profits.
The problem with the checks and balances is that the research is not often reproduced for veracity. When it is, it's often a competing pharmaceutical company attempting disproving the initial study in order to show their product as superior.

I have to admit, I enjoyed their game for a while. Back when pharmaceutical companies were able to wine and dine, I enjoyed wonderful free meals at top notch restaurants, conferences in fun locations, got free continuing ed credits...not to mention all those groovy pens.

But as the years passed, the more I listed to the spiels, then read the fine print on the journal article copies I was given that disclosed funding from the same pharmaceutical company as the employer of the drug rep providing me with the copy, the more cynical I got. Regardless of what I think personally about the racket, there's plenty of skepticism out there from more reputable folks than me as a poster on a message board.

Quote:
Not to mention unpaid researchers looking for doctorate material.
Not so. My first job out of undergrad was working as a tech for those guys. (You really haven't lived until you've bled rats and shaved little white mice.) They (nor I as a lowly tech) were unpaid. Their research is funded by grants--no different from that of degreed researchers--and the grants are often provided by guess who...pharmaceutical companies. The student researchers are awarded assistantships from the money which pays them for their work time and the grants often provide an additional monthly living stipend as well. If you don't think study design is affected by this conflict of interest in the "publish or perish" research world, then you have a lot more faith in human nature than I do.

Not all US medical research is a affected, but a lot is, especially when dealing with easy to skew data such as vaccine efficacy and efficacy of psychotrophic meds.

Further complicating the issue regarding vaccines, up until a couple of years ago CDC employees were allowed to do outside contract work for pharmaceutical companies. Guess who makes vaccine recommendations...ta da...the CDC. If that's not bad enough, federal law gives vaccine manufacturers lawsuit immunity even when there is clearcut evidence of design-defect resulting in harm.
The Following User Says Thank You to allye For This Useful Post:
Old 01-08-2013, 01:09 PM
MattB4's Avatar
MattB4 MattB4 is offline
Baal Sheeple
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,604
Thanks: 12,356
Thanked 14,410 Times in 5,458 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by allye View Post
The problem with the checks and balances is that the research is not often reproduced for veracity. When it is, it's often a competing pharmaceutical company attempting disproving the initial study in order to show their product as superior.

...
Good response. However it begs the question, What method of vaccine and drug testing would you find that you would trust? You certainly would not trust the alternative health care practitioners since they do not have anything close to a scientific approach. Worse they can allow claims of efficacy and anecdotal evidence to drive their business.

This is why I comment on folks that attack mainstream medicines but curiously swear by alternative medicines. If you distrust the pharmaceutical companies and the government you really should distrust the alternatives and herbal proponents. They are just as likely to be corrupted by profits and provide dangerous care.
Old 01-08-2013, 04:14 PM
10 Bears's Avatar
10 Bears 10 Bears is offline
Go Forward With Courage.
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SE Ohio
Age: 61
Posts: 3,058
Thanks: 7,217
Thanked 6,671 Times in 2,187 Posts
Default

I haven't even seen an MD since October of 1993 age 40 and I will be 60 in 2 months. I've been healthy as a plow horse doing it all my way. I get a checkup at an eye Doc every 4 months for eye pressure over glaucoma but that disease has not advanced since 2001 when I went off of the Meds deciding to treat it myself instead of suffer the side effects of those meds. There are alternative ways to do things that work.

As a smoker since age 14 or near 46yrs I rarely even get colds. I have not had the flue in decades. Quit taking the jab in 1976. I'm a rare bird.. I intensely dislike what we call the modern medical profession. They cure nothing. They make money on endless tests, scripts and many needless operations.

What I do not consume, alcohol, white sugar, bleached white flour, PORK, sodas, fake sugar like Splenda, Nutrasweet, Aspartame etc, candy, margarine, white bread and white rolls, junk oils, soy, anything on any label I cannot pronounce or know what it is. No fast food, no snack cakes or cookies store bought, no prepared foods, rarely canned soup-no table salt and more. I'm very picky.

What I do eat, whole wheat, raw sugar, raw honey, molasses, sorghum, oils- virgin olive and coconut oil, sunflower oil. Organic beef, chicken, turkey, venison.. I eat venison like most folks eat beef. Wild Hog when I can get one. Butter, raw milk from a neighbor who also supplies brown eggs. Home baked goods. Amish made goods. Amish are chemical free producers. I eat a ton of fresh veggies and salads, fruits daily. Sea Salt. Amish made cheeses or homemade cheeses etc.

I drink water, iced and hot tea, 100% fruit juice-nothing added, whey protein, homemade fruit smoothies and a cup of Joe. Nothing else--Ever. Right now I'm drinking cider made locally.

I have a green drink I makeup...Everyday I drink it mixed in OJ which has 17 different herbs, veggie,fruit powders etc.

I believe our immune systems are what we eat. Garbage In-Garbage Out.
Good Stuff In--Healthy consequences.

This is a testy subject.. the transit time of food through the body determines a lot of your health. For instance,,my average time between eating and going poop is 5 hrs. Since part of your liver sits right up against your colon it is not good to have toxic waste building up since the liver is your oil filter and determines hormone production.
(Think Insulin)

Your lymphatic system carries far more fluid than your blood stream. There are between 800 and 1200 lymph nodes in the body. THERE IS NO LYMPH PUMP. Get that system clogged and you begin all forms of diseases.

More than you wanted to know.. I know. But did your Doctor ever tell you this stuff?
Too busy taking your money..right?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 10 Bears For This Useful Post:
Old 01-08-2013, 04:21 PM
allye's Avatar
allye allye is offline
variable
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: deep in the heart of dixie
Posts: 1,191
Thanks: 6,602
Thanked 2,591 Times in 837 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Bears View Post
[B]As a smoker since age 14 or near 46yrs I rarely even get colds.

Why the heck do you do all that other stuff and then put carcinogens into your body???
Old 01-09-2013, 02:53 PM
TheFittest's Avatar
TheFittest TheFittest is offline
It's Survival Of
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NotUr Land
Posts: 1,976
Thanks: 2,038
Thanked 2,859 Times in 1,131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by allye View Post
Why the heck do you do all that other stuff and then put carcinogens into your body???
I hoping he grows/drys/rolls his own tobacco... It's not bad stuff on its own, its the manufacturers that ruin it. Pretty much the same idea with most of the common drugs.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheFittest For This Useful Post:
Old 01-09-2013, 04:08 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMcArthur View Post
The very young, the very old and the immunocompromised do not benefit from flu shots like the rest of us. Their immune systems are incapable of spooling up to the degree needed to confer immunity.
then why does the CDC shout from the rooftops for those very groups to get their flu shots????
Old 01-09-2013, 04:12 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
If the pharmaceutical companies did not do the research there would be no new drugs. The government can not afford to.

your wrong again kid......early drug research is often funded by the gov't through taxes




So it is not a serious flaw. You just need checks and balances such as double blind testing. You will never see a alternative medicine pusher subject their magic potions to a scientific double blind test. They know what the outcome would be. Loss profits.
there are plenty of medical ministrations that have not been subject to double blind testing...the "gold standard".....

most vaccine testing isnt double blind.........we can start there
most surgeries havent been double blind tested.....i can go on and on
Old 01-09-2013, 04:24 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by allye View Post
The problem with the checks and balances is that the research is not often reproduced for veracity. When it is, it's often a competing pharmaceutical company attempting disproving the initial study in order to show their product as superior.

I have to admit, I enjoyed their game for a while. Back when pharmaceutical companies were able to wine and dine, I enjoyed wonderful free meals at top notch restaurants, conferences in fun locations, got free continuing ed credits...not to mention all those groovy pens.

But as the years passed, the more I listed to the spiels, then read the fine print on the journal article copies I was given that disclosed funding from the same pharmaceutical company as the employer of the drug rep providing me with the copy, the more cynical I got. Regardless of what I think personally about the racket, there's plenty of skepticism out there from more reputable folks than me as a poster on a message board.



Not so. My first job out of undergrad was working as a tech for those guys. (You really haven't lived until you've bled rats and shaved little white mice.) They (nor I as a lowly tech) were unpaid. Their research is funded by grants--no different from that of degreed researchers--and the grants are often provided by guess who...pharmaceutical companies. The student researchers are awarded assistantships from the money which pays them for their work time and the grants often provide an additional monthly living stipend as well. If you don't think study design is affected by this conflict of interest in the "publish or perish" research world, then you have a lot more faith in human nature than I do.

Not all US medical research is a affected, but a lot is, especially when dealing with easy to skew data such as vaccine efficacy and efficacy of psychotrophic meds.

Further complicating the issue regarding vaccines, up until a couple of years ago CDC employees were allowed to do outside contract work for pharmaceutical companies. Guess who makes vaccine recommendations...ta da...the CDC. If that's not bad enough, federal law gives vaccine manufacturers lawsuit immunity even when there is clearcut evidence of design-defect resulting in harm.
are you single????
Old 01-09-2013, 04:30 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
Good response. However it begs the question, What method of vaccine and drug testing would you find that you would trust? You certainly would not trust the alternative health care practitioners since they do not have anything close to a scientific approach. Worse they can allow claims of efficacy and anecdotal evidence to drive their business.

.
research fraud in medicine can lead to deaths that far outnumber deaths from alt med research fraud........


BTW what is your take on the off label prescribing that is done nowadays...I mean really.....pills given for conditions that they were never properly tested on..... or given to age groups never tested.....is that science???? Is that any different then what certain alt med companies do??

Both are making claims that they cant back w/ real science
The Following User Says Thank You to 12vman For This Useful Post:
Old 01-09-2013, 04:31 PM
MattB4's Avatar
MattB4 MattB4 is offline
Baal Sheeple
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,604
Thanks: 12,356
Thanked 14,410 Times in 5,458 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12vman View Post
there are plenty of medical ministrations that have not been subject to double blind testing...the "gold standard".....

most vaccine testing isnt double blind.........we can start there
most surgeries havent been double blind tested.....i can go on and on
Name them. Back up your statement with proof. Please no links from alternative health websites.

Surgeries are not medication so I am puzzled why you tossed it into the mix. It would be impossible to conduct a double blind study of a surgery.

Also your claim of more deaths from regular medicine compared to alternative medicine is probably true since alternative medicine by and large is harmless stuff. That's why it is marketed as a food.
Old 01-09-2013, 05:44 PM
speedofl33t's Avatar
speedofl33t speedofl33t is offline
Sundown dazzling day
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 45
Posts: 14,064
Thanks: 7,899
Thanked 13,541 Times in 6,066 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Bears View Post
Your lymphatic system carries far more fluid than your blood stream. There are between 800 and 1200 lymph nodes in the body. THERE IS NO LYMPH PUMP. Get that system clogged and you begin all forms of diseases.

More than you wanted to know..
The lymphatic system is pretty awesome. You make it sound like crap. If it gets "clogged up" you get lymphedema, and it's not like you're going to just miss that.
The Following User Says Thank You to speedofl33t For This Useful Post:
Old 01-09-2013, 05:52 PM
speedofl33t's Avatar
speedofl33t speedofl33t is offline
Sundown dazzling day
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 45
Posts: 14,064
Thanks: 7,899
Thanked 13,541 Times in 6,066 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12vman View Post
then why does the CDC shout from the rooftops for those very groups to get their flu shots????
Because a say a low 30-40 % protection is better than 0 % for that specific individual. Which lottery would you enter, the ones with a few winnings or one with NONE? Especially if you win "life"...

PLEASE try to think for once...
The Following User Says Thank You to speedofl33t For This Useful Post:
Old 01-09-2013, 06:03 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post

Surgeries are not medication so I am puzzled why you tossed it into the mix. It would be impossible to conduct a double blind study of a surgery.

.
not really..esp a non emergency surgery....gv me a bit....off the top of my head I hv two heart surgery studies and one OA/knee surgery study
Old 01-09-2013, 06:05 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedofl33t View Post
Because a say a low 30-40 % protection is better than 0 % for that specific individual. Which lottery would you enter, the ones with a few winnings or one with NONE? Especially if you win "life"...

...
if only it were that simple......
Old 01-09-2013, 06:11 PM
12vman 12vman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ky
Posts: 2,970
Thanks: 10
Thanked 1,559 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB4 View Post
Name them. Back up your statement with proof. Please no links from alternative health websites.

.

This one is from the BMJ son.......please check the references at the end...dont miss those either

Ill let you digest that.......Ive got boatloads more




British Medical Journal 1991 (Oct 5); 303: 798–799


By RICHARD SMITH, Editor of BMJ


"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge, and where," asked T. S. Eliot, "is the knowledge we have lost in information?" There are perhaps 30,000 biomedical jounals in the world, and they have grown steadily by 7% a year since the seventeenth century. [1, 2] Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by, solid scientific evidence, David Eddy, professor, of health policy and management at Duke University, North Carolina, told a conference in Manchester last week.
This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound. [2, 3] and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all. "If," said Professor Eddy, "it is true, as the total quality management gurus tell us, that ‘every defect is a treasure’ then we are sitting on King Solomon's mine."

What are the implications for those purchasing health care if the scientific base of medicine really is so fragile? Because, as Professor Eddy said, "it is not enough to do the thing right; it is also necessary to do the right thing." The implications for purchasers of the poverty of medical evidence were considered at the Manchester meeting, which was organised jointly by the, British Association of Medical Managers and the resource management unit of the NHS Management Executive.

Professor Eddy began his medical life as a cardiothoracic surgeon in Stanford in California but became progressively concerned about the evidence to support what he and other doctors were doing. He decided to select an example of a common condition, with well established treatments and assess in detail the evidence supporting those treatments. Beginning with glaucoma, he searched published medical reports back to 1906 and could find not one randomised controlled trial of the standard treatment. Later he traced back the confident statements in textbooks and medical journals on treating glaucoma and found that they had simply been handed down from generation to generation. The same analysis was done for other treatments, including the treatment of blockages of the femoral and popliteal arteries; the findings were similar. That experience "changed his life," and after taking a degree in mathematics at Stanford University he became a professor at Duke University and one of the consultants most in demand in the United States.

Regularly he advises those producing consensus statements, and he is suspicious of the process. The best statements are based on scientifically sound evidence, but even when it is lacking (which is usual) the statements should make clear what evidence is available. Agreement of the experienced, without evidence, is a poor basis for producing advice, and as an illustration he told the story of the consensus reached by an international group that was expert in screening for colorectal cancer.

The group, including Professor Eddy, met all over the world for three days a year for five years. At the end the group recommended a protocol based on regular faecal occult blood tests and sigmoidoscopy. Professor Eddy asked each member of the group then to make a private estimate of how much mortality would be reduced by such a policy: the answers ranged from 0 to almost 100% and were randomly distributed within that range. Yet the consensus had been unanimous. As Hippocrates said, experience is fallacious.

Professor Eddy now runs courses for expert groups trying to achieve consensus. Each time he asks the members to list the outcomes they are seeking and to rank the scientific evidence for each outcome from excellent to none and then describe the best available evidence. For 21 problems tackled so far, the evidence has been judged— by the experts —to be between poor and none for 17, and usually the best available evidence was something less than a randomised controlled trial. Often the evidence that was available contradicted current practice; thus of 17 randomised trials on giving lidocaine prophylactically in patients with chest pain, 16 showed no effect, and one showed a positive result—yet practice in the United States was to give lidocaine.

The weakness of the scientific evidence underlying medical practice is one of the causes of the wide variations that are well recognised in medical practice. Dr Hugh Sanderson, director of the Wessex Cancer Intelligence Unit, illustrated the wide variations among observers and in referral rates, admission rates, investigations, and treatment. For example, among a sample of 172 radiotherapists 48% offered palliative treatment to patients with metastasised lung cancer only if they had symptoms, whereas 52% always offered treatment. Professor Eddy used this example to illustrate how doctors could be made not just to understand intellectually the variation in practice but also to feel it: radiotherapists could be asked to write down in secret what they would do for a particular patient and the results could then be pooled and discussed. The same process can be used with any specialty.

The evidence on effectiveness is poor, but the information needed— by purchasers, for instance— to choose among different treatments is almost never available. To choose, for example, among screening programmes you need, said Professor Eddy, data on how many people would need to be screened, how many deaths might be prevented, the cost of the screening program, and the savings. Turning to the "good news" in his presentation, he illustrated how mathematical modelling could be used to analyse limited data in order to make better decisions. He asked the audience to imagine that they had $400m to spend on screening for a population of a million adults and to choose between cholesterol screening as recommended by the national cholesterol education programme and breast screening as recommended by the American Cancer Society. These are two of the best studied screening methods, and much of the information needed for making policy decisions is available.

Cholesterol screening, according to the recommended protocol, could prevent 9620 events (including 340 sudden deaths, 2760 myocardial infarctions, and other conditions, some of them only poorly defined because of imprecise data) at a cost of $449m with a saving of $l01m (net cost $348m); breast screening would save 222 lives at a cost of $296m, but with a saving of only $5m (net cost $291m). A purchaser might thus opt for cholesterol screening, but Professor Eddy set his computer to adopt a more selective method of deciding who should be treated for hypercholesterolaemia— very much in the manner described in last week's BMJ by Professor Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe (28 September, p 744). The result is that you can prevent the same number of events with consequently the same saving (which is what Professor Eddy told his computer to do) at a cost of $192m, giving a net cost of $91m. The purchaser with $400m could then have both cholesterol and breast screening with $18m change. The computer could go further and be set to achieve higher benefits at lower costs.

This is how important information can be, but one of the problems is that the information comes out of a mathematical model— and doctors feel uncomfortable with such models. The doctors who devised the national cholesterol education program responded to his computer manipulation by saying that the protocol he had devised was too complicated to use. Professor Eddy is sympathetic but points out that medicine is far too complex an activity to be conducted by human minds unaided by computers: "We've been trying that for two millennia and look where we've got to." Planes are landed better by computers than humans— especially in rough weather— and much of medicine is more complicated than landing a plane. Professor Eddy thus has a fantasy of a health room equivalent to the control room at an airport, and the health room would contain all the information needed to make decisions to improve health. Like all fantasies this must be treated with caution, and purchasers in the NHS and elsewhere are faced now with making difficult choices with grossly inadequate information.

The afternoon session of the conference tackled some of the hard questions faced by purchasers. Firstly, should they specify care processes or health gain in contracts? Whatever you go for, make your decision in an alliance with providers, said one group asked to answer the question. Professor Eddy thought that for now purchasers would have to specify processes rather than outcomes, because outcomes were delayed and probabilistic. Secondly, where should purchasers get their advice on clinical advances? They had to go to local providers, everybody agreed, but "get them to provide their evidence," said Professor Eddy. Go as well, the meeting agreed, to national and international bodies, set priorities, and look for sophisticated analyses that use the best data. And try to avoid duplication, said Professor Eddy: "In the United States we have 200 groups working on the same 15 problems." Finally, how can doctors be encouraged to use this information? There were mutterings about participation, ownership, alliances, quality assurance, education, and cultural change, but Professor Eddy concluded: "Get doctors to understand how much they need reliable information. What could be worse than two millennia spent making life and death decisions with inadequate information?"

REFERENCES:

1. de Solla Price D. The development and structure of the biomedical literature. In: Warren KS, ed. Coping with the biomedical literature. New York: Praegel, 1981 :3-16.

2. Lock S. lntroduction. In: LockS,ed. The Future of Medical Journals. London: BMJ 1991: 1-8

3. Williamson, JW, Goldschmidt PG, Colton T. The quality of medical literature: an analysis of validalilon assessments. In: Bailar JC, Mosteller F. Medical use of statistics. Waltham. Massachusetts: NEJM Books, 1986.
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2 Chinese Women Have Died From H1N1 Flu TXplowgirl Manmade and Natural Disasters 14 01-11-2013 10:47 PM
Brittany Murphy died from flu complications - pneumonia blackkitty Manmade and Natural Disasters 61 02-10-2010 11:15 AM
Russian film director Maria Solovtsova died in Minsk from flu blackkitty Manmade and Natural Disasters 0 11-11-2009 07:35 PM
Autopsy confirms soldier died of swine flu blackkitty Manmade and Natural Disasters 11 10-04-2009 08:26 AM
Friends younger brother died from swine flu caduckgunner Manmade and Natural Disasters 4 07-23-2009 02:32 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright Kevin Felts 2006 - 2012,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net