Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[photon]

Originally Posted by zamler

Didn't get answers.

Uh, incorrect... I did give an answer.

Originally Posted by zamler

And using a term does not automatically make something a logical fallacy, hence my sarcastic response.

Re-read what I wrote, I didn't say what you said is fallacious, I said the meaning of the phrase you used refers to a fallacy, and that what you said WASN'T a fallacy!!

[Knut]

Originally Posted by zamler

I asked what I genuinely feel are legit questions. Didn't get answers. I don't feel a pharmacist should be making judgements on what products to sell based mainly on moral principles. And using a term does not automatically make something a logical fallacy, hence my sarcastic response.

He is not basing it on moral principles. He is basing it on science based medicine. Which pharmacists prescribe to.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by zamler

So if I have a prescription and my pharmacist is against that medication he should not sell it? Is that your stance?

What prescription would you have that the pharmacist is against. I deal with pharmacists daily and the most they do is ensure that what you are prescribed is safe for the individual. They don't deny someone drugs the doctor prescribed.

Naturopathic medicine is not prescribed. It is a recommendation.

[troutman]

Is it ethical to sell complementary and alternative medicine?

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...tive-medicine/

The impetus for my blogging (and tilting at CAM windmills) emerged from years spent working in a pharmacy with a heavy reliance on CAM sales. If it was unorthodox, this store probably sold it. Conventional drug products (the ones I was familiar with) were hidden off in a corner, and the store was otherwise crowded with herbal remedies, homeopathy, and different forms of detox kits and candida cleanses. All of this was unlike anything I’d ever seen or heard about in pharmacy school – so I started researching.

I looked at CAM from a scientific evidence perspective, the one I was taught in pharmacy school, using the same approach I’d take when assessing a new drug. Did the evidence support the claims made about these products, or not? The answers, as you might expect, were often the same. There was little or no credible evidence to demonstrate CAM had any meaningful benefits.

I’m pleased to announce that we have now published a peer-reviewed paper on the same topic in the journal Bioethics, “Alternative Medicine and the Ethics of Commerce.”

We argue that vendors should be taking reasonable steps to determine if their product “works” based on the claims they are making about their product. Given the specific (and often measurable) claims made about CAM effectiveness for different conditions and circumstances, we believe it is the responsibility of the vendor to evaluate the best evidence available, taking care to ensure the statements they are making are backed by supporting evidence. If a product or service cannot be reasonably expected to deliver as promised, then ethically, a vendor should stop selling that product in the marketplace.

I think it is unfair to put the main burden on pharmacists, and that regulators should be going much further in evaluating the health claims made by CAM products.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/article...ry-supplements

FDA's Rules for Health Claims

What kinds of claims can companies make on food and supplement labels? FDA-approved claims:

• Must be based on significant scientific evidence that shows a strong link between a food substance and a disease or health condition.
• Can state only that a food substance reduces the risk of certain health problems — not that it can treat or cure a disease. For example: "Calcium may reduce the risk of the bone disease osteoporosis. "

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think it is unfair to put the main burden on pharmacists, and that regulators should be going much further in evaluating the health claims made by CAM products.

Why is it unfair to put the burden on Pharmacists? They are viewed by society as the medication authorities, and the face of their stores whom customers trust. The very sale of these products under their watch is a de facto endorsement whether stated or not.

Their training gives them all the tools required to evaluate these products appropriately, and it should be part of their job responsibility on some level.

Further more, they want to be taken as credible medical professionals, earning them the ability to give limited medical advice, prescribe certain medications and administer them in some cases (eg. vaccines). In this environment, to knowingly sell snake oil on the side is unprofessional and unethical.

[troutman]

In a free market if people want to buy snake oil, who should deny them this option?

Maybe the best that regulators and pharmacists can do is require labeling that the health claims made by certain products are unproven or disproven?

The danger in that though is people may be delaying treatment by more effective methods.

[Knut]

Most pharmacists are employed by a chain like shoppers or loblaws. I doubt they have much say in what is on their shelves. If anything the regulatory body for pharmacists should be trying to get these things removed from their stores. That is who has to the power to make a difference. I guess though that it might hit some of them in pocket book so it is likely a tough debate at pharmacist AGMs.

[troutman]

Homeopathy:
http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

Naturopathy:
http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html

[troutman]

A Raw Milk Fiasco

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...w-milk-fiasco/

Legislators in West Virginia passed a law legalizing the drinking of raw milk (but not the sale or distribution). Some of them drank raw milk to celebrate, and later came down sick with stomach symptoms.

This is one of those perfectly ironic stories that the internet loves. However, the lawmakers in question are denying that the milk is to blame. Instead they blame a stomach virus that has been going around their capital. A definitive answer is not yet available.

While the story is funny, it is irrelevant to the real question – is raw milk safe, and are there any health benefits beyond pasteurized milk? The answer to both questions is no.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by troutman

In a free market if people want to buy snake oil, who should deny them this option?

Maybe the best that regulators and pharmacists can do is require labeling that the health claims made by certain products are unproven or disproven?

The danger in that though is people may be delaying treatment by more effective methods.

Are they not medical professionals first? They didn't do 4 years of rigorous post secondary to become a profit driven 7-11 who sells whatever even if it harms their customers.

Would you be OK with a medical physician doing this sort of activity?

If they want to be part of a medical team with some of the perks accorded to physicians, they need to act like it. This responsibility extends to vetting the "medical" products they sell and being proper health advocates.

I understand these products are currently being put on the shelves by the franchise, but it should be the duty of their regulating authority/professional organization to do their job on a global level and advocate for patient health. Pleading ignorance and passing on the duty to someone else is not a valid reason when their core responsibility to patients is all things medication.

[Knut]

^ Agreed.

Increasing scope of practice comes with it increased responsibility to the public.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by troutman

In a free market if people want to buy snake oil, who should deny them this option?

The government.

It's still the government's responsibility to protect their citizens even if it's from their own stupidity. Especially when we start talking about toddlers dieing.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Are they not medical professionals first? They didn't do 4 years of rigorous post secondary to become a profit driven 7-11 who sells whatever even if it harms their customers.

Would you be OK with a medical physician doing this sort of activity?

If they want to be part of a medical team with some of the perks accorded to physicians, they need to act like it. This responsibility extends to vetting the "medical" products they sell and being proper health advocates.

I understand these products are currently being put on the shelves by the franchise, but it should be the duty of their regulating authority/professional organization to do their job on a global level and advocate for patient health. Pleading ignorance and passing on the duty to someone else is not a valid reason when their core responsibility to patients is all things medication.

[corporatejay]

Street, not trying to pick on you because I know I've asked you this before and I think you've being candid with the predicament you're in vis-a-vis your franchise and I'm totally onside with Nuclear Fart. It's either up to the government or your professional association to step up and say something.

The best example that I can think of where I honestly feel mislead is on infant cough syrup. As far as I understand it (talking to my friend who's a pediatrician), infants/toddlers cannot have cough syrup because it contains dextromethorphan which can be fatal because infants have a hard time metabolizing it.

So, pharmacies sell over the counter "infant cough syrups" which don't contain dextromethorphan. Problem is, without dextromethorphan (the actual cough suppressing agent) you are selling me flavoured water.

Now, I didn't know any of this until she was telling me a story about a patient. That #### is sold right next to the actual cough medicine. I didn't know I was buying a BS product. That, to me, is unethical.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Are they not medical professionals first? They didn't do 4 years of rigorous post secondary to become a profit driven 7-11 who sells whatever even if it harms their customers.

Would you be OK with a medical physician doing this sort of activity?

If they want to be part of a medical team with some of the perks accorded to physicians, they need to act like it. This responsibility extends to vetting the "medical" products they sell and being proper health advocates.

I understand these products are currently being put on the shelves by the franchise, but it should be the duty of their regulating authority/professional organization to do their job on a global level and advocate for patient health. Pleading ignorance and passing on the duty to someone else is not a valid reason when their core responsibility to patients is all things medication.

I hear your concern and share it, but if we're going to say that the position of the regulatory bodies is to regulate which kinds of Medicine are sold, I think the Alberta College of Physicians has a much bigger job ahead of itself.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons does not prevent these doctors from actively practicing much worse than selling placebos:


Dr Bruce Hoffman
http://www.hoffmancentre.com/dr-bruc...hb-faarfm.html


Dr Natasha Iyer
www.calgaryhormonedoctor.com


evolvewell.ca features a number of licensed physicians offering chelation, nutritional iv therapies, etc.


doctortrethart.com
More chelation therapy and hair analysis


lynnemurfinmd.com
More "optimization therapies"




Look. I see the problem and so do you. I'm not hiding it here and I spend my time explaining to people it's unnecessary. I also spend a good portion of my time convincing patients that clearly have a cold that they may not need the antibiotics they just got prescribed. I could make a whole lot more money if I didn't have ethics.

But before you admonish my profession and organization on it's ethical duplicity, maybe look at your own. It's a problem with pharmacy I'd love to solve too. I'm not going to spend more effort on here defending my profession because I'm very, very proud of the work I do and of my colleagues.

This problem needs to be a federal health solution. Natural Products Directorate had been an unmitigated disaster that led us here and I'm in it for my patients the same as you. Toys R Us sells Tylenol beside their homeopathic fever remedies too. As does every grocery chain, and even many convenience stores. That doesn't excuse pharmacies involvement, but it does put in perspective my options. Shall I not work then? If so where shall I practice?

I'd gladly discuss much bigger issues that pharmacists need to address such as OTC codeine products, etc, but I'm not sure a social media mob is the way to go with that.

[NuclearFart]

Street, this was never directed at you personally, nor am I trying to incite a social media revolution. I merely wanted to spur on an interesting discussion. You gave a very thoughtful response, and I see you as part of the solution. I have nothing but respect for my individual pharmacist colleagues whom I often work with closely, and not infrequently seek opinions from.

I also fully concede MD's aren't perfect because every profession has its warts, but your comparison of the problem to physicians is a straw man argument, and very much apples to oranges. Since you raised them, I will address your points though:

~100% of outpatient pharmacies appear to be complicit in this problem. A handful of doctors who are clearly recognized as a fringe minority represents <1% of MDs. They are openly criticised by their peers, and are not endorsed by any real medical organization for their practices.

That said, differing opinions are allowed, and the CPSA cannot withdraw/suspend their license unless they demonstrate verifiable harm or gross incompetence. These fringe docs walk a fine line which the CPSA watches very closely, and don't be surprised to see prior or eventual disciplinary action. The CMA/AMA itself is very involved with clinical practice guidelines effectively refuting questionable activities, and works alongside AHS to prevent the billing of such services. It's not perfect, but there is by no means any turning a blind eye so the industry can profit.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Street, this was never directed at you personally, nor am I trying to incite a social media revolution. I merely wanted to spur on an interesting discussion. You gave a very thoughtful response, and I see you as part of the solution. I have nothing but respect for my individual pharmacist colleagues whom I often work with closely, and not infrequently seek opinions from.

I also fully concede MD's aren't perfect because every profession has its warts, but your comparison of the problem to physicians is a straw man argument, and very much apples to oranges. Since you raised them, I will address your points though:

~100% of outpatient pharmacies appear to be complicit in this problem. A handful of doctors who are clearly recognized as a fringe minority represents <1% of MDs. They are openly criticised by their peers, and are not endorsed by any real medical organization for their practices.

That said, differing opinions are allowed, and the CPSA cannot withdraw/suspend their license unless they demonstrate verifiable harm or gross incompetence. These fringe docs walk a fine line which the CPSA watches very closely, and don't be surprised to see prior or eventual disciplinary action. The CMA/AMA itself is very involved with clinical practice guidelines effectively refuting questionable activities, and works alongside AHS to prevent the billing of such services. It's not perfect, but there is by no means any turning a blind eye so the industry can profit.

Thanks for the response.

Pharmacists do not bill public money for homeopathic preparations either. Nor can either governing body participate in thought control. That's my point. How widespread the problem is vs severity can be argued all day, but my actual point is not a strawman. The college of pharmacists can no more regulate what can be on our shelves anymore than CPSA can prevent a doctor from practicing chelation. There are ardent homeopathic supporters in pharmacy too as there are in medicine. This needs to be tackled nationally with better limits on claims, not getting a college to forbid what can be sold. Pharmacists work in the confines of what can be done. Unfortunately, most practices are in settings that have non pharmacy interests. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a good portion of upper management in all these places (grocery stores, etc) have zero knowledge of the difference between homeopathy and medicine. The team making the planograms (order of stuff on a shelf) likely never discusses this in their cubicles or has any clue. There is lots of discussion railing against the sale of these products in our profession, but the solution was never going to be in regulatory bodies. If a pharmacist wants to have a job, he has to practice in this environment or he doesn't get employed at all. The discussion needs to be bigger because you'll never see every pharmacist risk their families livelihood on this. Health Canada needs to grow some balls and ignore the lobbies of big placebo. Additionally, social media pressure against pharmacies is fine, but it's a delicate balance to call pharmacists complicit when the overwhelming majority are not.

That was the line I felt you crossed. I'm sorry if it sounded angry, but I got the sense you were suggesting this was pharmacists problem they created and had to solve and I'd have to disagree there. We're part of the solution to be sure, but the problem is much, much bigger.

[undercoverbrother]

Can We stop with this already?

http://globalnews.ca/news/3253840/ro...ines-are-safe/

Robert De Niro joined Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 15 to hold a press conference about vaccine safety.

The pair are looking for proof that vaccines are safe and teamed up to offer $100,000 to anyone who can provide such information.

The actor participated in the panel, which showcased discredited claims surrounding vaccination, including the notion that they cause autism and that high levels of mercury in immunizations can make kids sick.

In 2016, De Niro pulled his anti-vaccination movie Vaxxed from the Tribeca Film Festival lineup. The actor appeared on the Today show shortly after and spoke about the film and what his intentions are.

“I think the movie is something that people should see,” he said. “There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there’s a lot of things that are not said. I, as a parent of a child who has autism, I’m concerned. And I want to know the truth. I’m not anti-vaccine. I want safe vaccines.”

When Today host Willie Geist pointed out that there’s plenty of scientific evidence proving that vaccines don’t cause autism, De Niro replied that he thinks everyone should see Vaxxed and decide for themselves.

[Knut]

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.vox.co...movement-trump

It is seriously scary right now. I guess we need some big outbreak of a preventable disease to quiet these people.

So disappointed in DeNiro jumping onto the bandwagon. I will now never be able to separate the actor from the stupidity.

[ASP#26525]

Originally Posted by troutman

Homeopathy:
http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

Naturopathy:
http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html

I basically pointed this out to a new friend of mine that is huge into homeopathy and has spent thousands of dollars on treatments she is convinced work.

She doesn't talk to me anymore Apparently the truth can ruin a chance at friendship. Oh well, I probably dodged a bullet :/