Skip to main content

Vaccines and Autism - The Conspiracy Lives On!

Image
By

Here’s a great power word for readers to casually toss around with friends.  Iatrogenic. This refers to a medical condition or complication caused by a medical treatment.  For example, if a person undergoes a knee replacement and suffers blood clots afterwards, this complication is considered to be an iatrogenic illness – it is a direct result of a medical intervention.

The volume of iatrogenic illness is enormous.  I am not suggesting that the medical profession is culpable, although adhering to strict safety guidelines and best practices can lower the case load.  Indeed, many such safety practices are in place today that were not present when I entered the profession. 

Among the most common iatrogenic conditions are medication side effects.  On a regular basis, every physician and health care practitioner has wondered if a patient’s new or worsening symptom might be the result of a medication.  Sometimes this is an easy call.  For example, a patient develops a rash 5 days after starting an antibiotic.  Clear enough.  It’s a murkier situation if a patient with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) develops worsening bowel issues a month after starting a new blood pressure medicine.  Is the new symptom a medication side effect or simply increased IBS activity?



A rash that starts days after an antibiotic is prescribed is probably drug related.


So, if a medication side-effect is being contemplated, then physicians may have 3 broad categories of evidence available to help determine if the drug is responsible.

                                                                           Category I

There is no available evidence that the medicine has been linked to the adverse reaction.  This doesn’t mean that the drug is definitively innocent, but the absence of any scientific support for this specific side effect makes the drug an unlikely culprit.

                                                                            Category II

There is known evidence and experience that the adverse event can be related to the drug.  So, if a patient develops headaches after starting a drug that is known to cause this symptom, then a drug effect is plausible, if not likely.

                                                                            Category III

Scientific study has refuted that this particular adverse event is related to the drug.  If this evidence is high quality, then a physician can confidently reject that a drug side effect has occurred.

A week or so before penning this post, I read that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are examining if autism is caused by vaccines.  I was astonished, especially after RJK, Jr., during his senate confirmation hearing gave the impression that he was not a vaccine skeptic and would be guided by the science.  Hmmm…   Have we ever seen government leaders offer views that contradict those expressed at their confirmation hearings?

There is no decent medical evidence suggesting that vaccines cause autism.  More importantly, this issue has been repeated studied yielding high quality evidence that has completely debunked this fringe belief.  It is simply not true.  And yet in some benighted corners of the land, it still lives.  Once of those dark corners is the Department of Health and Human Services.   If only we had a vaccine to protect us from ignorance and disinformation.

Any ideas why top professionals at the CDC are resigning?

 

 

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Becoming a Part-Time Physician

By
Next month my schedule will change.  I will henceforth be off on Fridays with my work week truncated to Monday through Thursday.   I am excited to be enjoying a long weekend every weekend.  And while the schedule change is relatively minor, this event does feel like an important career moment for me.  It is the first step on a journey that will ultimately lead beyond my professional career.  It is this recognition that makes this modest schedule modification more significant than one would think it deserves.  As some readers know,   my current employed position has been a dream job for me.   Prior to this, I was in a small private practice, which I loved, but was much more challenging professionally and personally.   My partner and I ran the business.   Working nights, weekends and holidays were routine for decades.   On an on-call night, if I slept  through until morning, I felt as if I had won the lottery.   And w...
15 comments
Read more

When Should Doctors Retire?

By
I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...
69 comments
Read more

Will Smarter Lawyers End Frivolous Lawsuits?

By
How do you know if a lawyer is any good?  Of course, they've all passed the bar, but now their profession is lowering it.  While most of us strive for excellence, and raise our children to value this virtue, prominent legal educators are establishing a new quality intitiative for their profession.  Who says that lawyers can't reform themselves?  Perhaps, we physicians can follow their bold example and raise the credentials of our pre-medical students.  I’ll present the facts. You be the judge. I have written a dozen posts on tort reform on this blog, which always generate spirited and adversarial retorts from attorneys and their supporters. They accuse me and other tort reform advocates of carrying water for insurance companies. They repeatedly point out that I know nothing about the legal system and are unqualified to opine on its flaws. They deride me when I argue that effective tort reform would reduce the practice of defensive medicine, despite the re...
83 comments
Read more