Google, Where Anti-immunization Pseudoscience Reigns

Disturbing.

I've thrown up the links to Flea's concise posts as Dr Crippen suggests, another drop in the ocean, one hopes.

Dork

It is sobering to read your analysis but good to know that this vital issue is being aired.

There is a great need to publicise posts and articles like Dr. Flea's that promote the scientific or majority view of the value of immunization.

One of the commenters on Dr. Crippen's post suggested that if bloggers take this issue seriously enough, they might consider some concerted action to promote pro-immunization posts: Tom P recommends this article on Google promotion.

that's right, blame google for not being proactive enough.

why dont you get off your ass and start a googlebombing campaign instead?

Actually, all the medical authorities would have to do would be to add "vaccine" and "vaccination" to their metatext (which is invisible to the public).

And, everybody who uses the Net should brush up their Boolean -- otherwise any research query is deceptively weighted.

(And, IMHO as a pro webmaster, googlebombing, et al. is childish. All it does is demonstrate which folks from whatever message boards have too much time on their hands and a fondness for pseudo postmodernist mind games. Artificially weighted search results are useless.)

googlebombing thus far has been used as for childish games, yes.

so what?

my experience with google has been that there is plenty of "artificial weight" out there, usually in the service of porn spam or pseudo-portal-sites for click-fraud.

have you seen this proliferation of blogs created solely for the purpose of linking to spam sites (usually porn) and each other? they serve to weight the search results, regardless of if you think that is legitimate or not.

so please explain your objection to using that as a tool to boost these search results again?

i also noticed that the blog linked to (nhs blog doctor) is doing and saying pretty much EXACTLY what i am - link to pro immunization articles, and google will change its rankings.

so quit your whining.

My advice is that no one should rely on the weighting of search results, due to the high number of variables involved, and because of the impact of inappropirate or unreliable factors, such as bombing or fake sites. The frequency or weight of items on any search engine is absolutely meaningless.
The "advanced search" options are the best way to go (limiting not only key words, but weeding out amateur sources) for any sort of research.

And, unfortunately, this yet again means that the least sophisticated or thorough readers are going to be vulnerable to illegitimate approaches. But, that's the way it's always been, regardless of the media involved. Yet another reason, here, to be grateful for librarians, since they're on the front lines of teaching the non-geek public how to wend their way through this mess.

While the "pseudoscience" is all very scary and typically wrong, Google would in-fact be more evil if they acted as censor to make only the NIH party line available to the public.

Vaccinations violate the principle of "first, do no harm."

Studies, performed by those who stand to profit from production of vaccines, demonstrate that on balance vaccinations do more good than harm, but many of these results are questionable. While it is noble to think of the suffering saved by buildup of herd immunity, it is unconscionable to ignore the millions who suffer adverse events - some of which lead to lifelong disabilities.

Without the hue and cry of pseudoscience and mothers of damaged children, I believe preservation by thimerosal would still be standard practice. The increasing power of big pharma and the barrage of new vaccines on the approval horizon deserve close scrutiny.

If medical science can't make a better case than pseudoscience hucksters and convince a majority of the lawmakers that vaccines are necessary, maybe there is something to the hucksters' claims after all.

heretic:

There is nothing wrong from having some profit from production of vaccines. After all, someone has made a profit from smallpox vaccines.

And I wouldn't call it the party line. We call it science. We (clinicians, epidemiologists, scientists) give you world-class research, you give us kitchen talk. We tell you about antigens in dead/attenuated viruses, and resultant immunity, you give us your party line devoid of ideas (antigens in live viruses are better, heh?) We tell you we know exactly the rate of complications, you tell us what babushka in Iowa wrote on some website. Your kitchen talk, your peasant experience has not produced penicillin in 3,000 years of human history. Our scientific method did. After all, medicine is a science. And science is different from mere observation.

Finally. You might not realise it, but pharma companies would probably make more profit off of sick and dying, those that are not immunised.

DrO:

There is no question that you people have made amazing strides with your scientific method, while our kitchen talk has a slower, more chaotic nature to its progress.

Your reading of the above post seems to feel that profits are being attacked, but I don't read that at all. Maybe you are a bit defensive on the subject of profits?

I would call it the party line when state laws require immunization with vaccines of questionable value, questionable even when applying your scientific method.

We all get sick and die, I don't think the scientific method is going to cure that in the next decade or two. There's plenty of profit to be made from misery and the fear of death, and I believe that those willing to pay for relief and reassurance should do so.

The question for me is whether we should be requiring, by law, the entire population to participate in what amounts to experimental trials for diseases that do not affect the majority. The new round of vaccines treat things like cervical cancer and other diseases that are not killing millions with today's treatment regime. There's an established precident that vaccines work best when administered to the entire population (herd immunity) - proven by the scientific method, and I believe it. What I question is whether we should mandate these vaccines to be administered to the entire herd when the side effects may be as bad as the disease they are trying to wipe out.

Scientific understanding of germs and sanitation caused a dramatic increase in Polio. I'd rather my children not live in a generation that is in the process of learning a similar lesson by similar methods. We can do better.

heretic2:

Have you ever thought about why mammograms are recommended for women every year after 50, while chest Xrays are not? After all, lung cancer is a huge killer of women. Well, in medicine there is a science called epidemiology. And the scientific method of this science is applied to figure out when risks justify benefits, when tests will make more diagnoses and less false alarms, etc. Many bright minds, using real science, think about issues facing the society. These people are in private and state universities, medical schools, think tanks and the government. They recommend, you don't have to follow recommendations: it's a free society.

Frankly, what you think is irrelevant. You give me your kitchen talk. And it has nothing to do with the reality. Yours is an opinion piece. Nothing else. Your opinion is that there is "chaotic nature" to the progress made in the kitchen. My facts are that there has never been a scientific discovery made in the kitchen. It's not progress, it's homemaker's talk.

P.S. I wonder why my family, all my MD partners and all my MD friends have immunised their kids according to the schedules recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

DrO:

You seem oblivious to the fact that state laws mandate vaccination with compounds that have not yet had sufficient epidemiological study to ensure that they indeed cause less harm than good. The "people" are not demanding these laws, we are all sitting around talking witchcraft and voodo, as this article points out and you well know.

Lobbyists can and do convince lawmakers to rely on junk science to justify passing this legislation that curtails the rights and freedoms of those who choose not to vaccinate their children.

I am all for big pharma developing whatever drugs they want, justifying their effectiveness through the approval process and later epidemiological study, and letting the people choose whether or not they want to follow this course of treatment.

When my wife was pregnant she chose to treat her morning sickness with accupressure wristbands, and it was moderately effective for her. There was a time, not long ago, when the scientific community would have recommended thallomide instead.

heretic2:

We are talking about different issues. I talk about the science, you talk about politics. You should talk to your representative.

"Many bright minds, using real science, think about issues facing the society. These people are in private and state universities, medical schools, think tanks and the government. They recommend, you don't have to follow recommendations: it's a free society."

Unless you're a fat person, in which case you're subjected to co-opted research, the results of which are ignored whenever they disagree with the mandate that all fat people must be changed into thin people, even if it kills them.

Yeah, we don't have to follow their advice. Unless we want to have jobs, or health insurance, or not (literally) be harassed every time we leave the house.

Hey, I'm all for science, but please don't speak as if mainstream medicine actually uses it more than half of the time. Especially when there's lots of money to be made. (And, we've not even begun to talk about the pharmaceutical lies.)

I don't trust woowoo faith healers. I trust mainstream medicine even less. The woowoo crowds operating out of hope and wishful thinking. Mainstream medicine is willing to kill the stigmatized for a fast buck. Who's worse?

DrO:

Representatives barely listen to me, they are supposed to listen to the majority of their voting constituency.

Which brings us back to the article - it appears, from Google's search results, that there is a significant pool of opinion formed against vaccination. I doubt that your typical representative cares who is right or wrong, (s)he cares about what position will keep them in power through re-election.

Vaccination is such a small issue it really doesn't carry any weight in a legislative session, it's one of the issues that legislators can vote to their preference without major reprecussion in the next election - unless you count the campaign contributions they might recieve for taking a particular stand, that could have much larger effect on re-election and their personal lifestyle than voter's influence from whichever position they choose.

Your science is not infalliable, and oral tradition is not worthless. For what it's worth, I tend to make my decisions based on my best, least biased, scientifically based opinion I can obtain. To discount the power and effect of greed in this world is naive. In my opinion the majority of published "science" has been tainted by self-promoting interests.

heretic2:

I don't have any interest in further debating someone like yourself, who's opinions are based on kitchen hearsay and pseudoscience. And there is not even one legend of a major scientific breakthrough done in the kitchen. Ever.

What you say is fundamentally no different than opinion of Islamic clerics in Nigeria who "organised a boycott of the polio vaccine, claiming it was part a western plot against Muslims."

All I know is that my family, my MD friends, my MD partners have immunised their kids according to schedules and recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. These scientific guidelines are based on the extensive research of risks and benefits. Risks of immunization? Yes. But the risks of a highly contagious viral disease are far greater. Hence recommendations.

Our bodies are bombarded every day with new antigens. And so we develop new antibodies. I want my child to receive antigens from dead or attenuated viruses, and to develop immunity.

You want otherwise, you want to be heroic sceptic, it is your choice. Sorry, the only thing I see in you is ignorance.

Case closed.

DrO:

Last word on you: you clearly love hearing yourself type and don't even read what you are responding to.

Exactly the kind of person I do not want looking after my welfare.

heretic,

How about a last word on you: if no one listens to you and if you'll be deciding things based on your own understanding of science, how about you quit participating in these discussion matters here? Really, just stop, cause you can't have it both ways. Doctors won't convince you of medical issues. You can play doctor yourself along with whoever you think is a doctor. Like a friend of mine who went to a "holistic doctor" who told him that "his nature is cold", and that he should eat more sesame seeds because "their nature is warm". And who am I to argue with him and his doctor?
You folks are voluntarily digging yourself back into the dark ages. Well done, and keep eating those sesame seeds.

Are you talking about science, or the coopted exploitation business that calls itself "medicine."

Face reality, guys. Mainstream medicine is a whorehouse, and hasn't got a damn thing to do with "scientific method." Calling mainstream people "peasants" is not exactly a good way to win back your credibility, especially when a lot of those "peasants" have seen you kill people just to make money.

Nobody trusts you anymore because you are not worthy of being trusted? Get it?

kbrigan: right on!

I believe in science, and the scientific method, and when a number of clearly independant studies come together (which is becomming harder to determine lately with global funding of research by drug & device companies) that becomes a scientific opinion I will put my trust in.

Unfortunately, the medicine I have seen practiced usually focuses on minimizing costs and maximizing patient throughput. It's easy to say "one shot fits all", but that's not really the case, is it? It's not surprising that "the peasants" go looking elsewhere for care.

World-class research isn't only tainted at the source, it's also failing to deliver at the point of care. Sadly, people need to do their own research and form their own opinions because the system is failing to deliver on its promises.

Denigrating others' work ("medicine is a whorehouse") will not make you any greater. Fifty years ago, we did not know about the DNA. Today we have highly successful molecular genetics. Fifty years ago, if you've got angina, you were done deal. Today we do open heart surgeries, and now, open heart surgeries on the beating heart. We have monoclonal antibodies, RNAi, eradication of smallpox, and H2 blockers. All this and much more is due to the scientific research, the science, and, yes, pharma companies and medical device manufacturers. And it has nothing to do with some luminaries that sit at home and think they can browse various nutty websites, and make "best, least biased, scientifically based opinion," and then they think they are the ones who contribute to science.

P.S. I still did not get response from anyone why mammograms are recommended for women every year after 50, while chest Xrays are not. If medicine is such an unethical business, wouldn't one expect all tests, all the time?

The only reason that mammograms are recommended for screening women is b/c 'Big Cancer' has stock in the companies that make/sell/fix these 'machines.' Plus everyone knows that the Mammogram Lobby is WAY stronger than the Plain Film Lobby, thats the real reason CXRs aren't recommended. I've also read from an unbiased, credible source on the internet, that they [big cancer] are the sole owners of all pink dye in the world and they've raised their prices to astronomical levels (which incidentally has put the mom & pop cancer support shops out of business). Follow the $$ 'doctor' O, if in fact you are a real doctor, follow the $$. Its also a well known FACT that the people who make these 'evidence based recommendations' have absolutely NO loved ones who are at risk for cancer. Thus they're free to suck up huge amounts of profit while their mothers/daughters/sisters are safe because they have the true cure. Thats right, I read it in Kevin Trudeau's new book: Big Pharm has a cure for everything and they only give it to their loved ones b/c they'd go bankrupt if everyone was healthy all the time.

the truth shall set you free!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Note: Ridiculously Amounts of Heavy Sarcasm Intended

Note #2: Dr. O, I hope this won't negatively effect my paycheck, Oh and sorry about the real doctor jab :)

I knew an intern who once explained to me that it's irrelevant if mammograms cause breast cancer since "we can cure" breast cancer. I assume this is the logic and ethics that all modern "healers" are taught?

Nevermind the expense and pain of annual mammograms, not to mention a course of breast cancer treatment, let's get all the medical practice we can.

This is progress?

This just in from the obvious department: (one can extend the principle from beverage to medical device / drug / vaccine without too much imagination)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One study shows that milk can help people lose weight. Another shows that tomato juice might prevent cancer and a third shows benefits to fizzy sodas.

But consumers should take those studies with a grain of salt, researchers reported on Monday. If a study was industry-funded, it was far more likely to have a positive finding than if it was paid for by the government or an independent group, the researchers found.

"We are not singling out any industry or any particular study," said lead researcher Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard University.

"Our first look shows evidence strongly suggestive of bias," Ludwig said in a telephone interview.

The study, published by the Public Library of Science online journal PLoS Medicine, echoes other findings that show industry-funded research on drugs is more likely to be favorable to the drugs than independent research.

Ludwig's team reviewed 111 studies on soft drinks, juice and milk that were published between 1999 and 2003.

"We chose beverages because they represent an area of nutrition that's very controversial, that's relevant to children, and involves a part of the food industry that is highly profitable and where research findings could have direct financial implications," Ludwig said.

Studies funded entirely by industry were four times to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the sponsors than those paid for by other groups, the researchers found.

Of the 22 studies clearly identified as funded by companies or industry groups, just three, or 13.6 percent, had findings that were unfavorable to the beverage studied.

More than 38 percent of the independently funded studies were negative, the researchers found.

This "raises serious concerns that some food industries may distort the scientific record on diet and health," Martijn Katan, professor of nutrition at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, wrote in a commentary in the same journal.

Ludwig said the studies could be set up differently if they are funded by industry. Or it could be that sponsors choose not to publish studies that turn out unfavorable to their product, he said.

Researchers funded by industry may do rigorous work, but may choose to ask certain questions more likely to produce a result favorable to the product, Ludwig said.

"I don't blame researchers for this problem. I think that most are highly ethical and dedicated to science," Ludwig said.

He said the problem is that the government does not spend much money studying nutrition.

"Industry money becomes difficult to resist," he said. "Imagine ... you are facing the choice of accepting industry money or closing up shop."

Ludwig's study was paid for by his hospital and by the Charles H. Hood Foundation, a childhood health philanthropy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070108/sc_nm/nutrition_funding_dc_1

http://research.seattlechildrens.org/centers/pediatric-bioethics-conference.asp

If you dont have your kids immunised (yes immuniSed, as it is spelt in the rest of the English speaking world), you are nothing short of a complete fool. Do you think they make these vaccines up for fun? Just an excuse to give a little kid a needle? Wake up. Yes, it has been reported that there have been (rare) cases of adverse reactions - but what makes you think your kid will be the one in however-many-million to suffer this misfortune?