Homeopathy and EBM

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Here is a quick overview of ONE study from your list that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of the flu shot. Again, PLEASE refer to the tables and READ READ READ the article before you just read the abstract and think they are reporting numbers correctly.

http://home.smh.com/sections/services-procedures/medlib/Pandemic/Pan_Geriatrics/PanGer_49_Nichol_050309.pdf

Influenza Vaccination and Reduction in Hospitalizations for Cardiac Disease and Stroke among the Elderly

Kristin L. Nichol, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., James Nordin, M.D., M.P.H., John Mullooly, Ph.D., Richard Lask, M.D., Kelly Fillbrandt, B.S., and Marika Iwane, Ph.D.

 

"At baseline, vaccinated subjects were on average sicker, having higher rates of most coexisting conditions, outpatient care, and prior hospitalization for pneumonia than unvaccinated subjects. Unvaccinated subjects, however, were more likely to have been given a prior diagnosis of dementia or stroke."

 

 

We estimated vaccine effectiveness by subtracting the adjusted odds ratio from 1, using the adjusted odds ratio as an approximation of relative risk. We calculated the numbers needed to treat (i.e., vaccinate) to prevent one outcome using the following equation: 1÷(vaccine effectiveness - the event rate in unvaccinated subjects).

 

Look at table 1: Everything except dementia or stroke was lower in the baseline data including outpatient visits, hospitalizations and hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza.

 

Look at table 2: Hospitalizations for pneumonia and the flu in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated shows at 0.6% - 0.9% = 0.3% reduction (absolute reduction not relative like the study reported). The 1999-2000 cohort showed a 0.7% - 0.8% = 0.1% reduction (absolute). That is with a CI of 95% and what are the odds of “things” happening to cause this reduction. Is a 0.1% or 0.3% reduction significant?

 

I think you misread table 1. It showed the vaccinated group was markedly sicker even before vaccination. Joined with the study I posted where it explains that the elderly have poor immune systems and have greater difficulty developing titer, I think it's encouraging they did as well as they did.

 

Furthermore, extrapolating this data to all age groups requires mental gymnastics. What about my study that showed college age and children over 6 had near 100% protection, with high percentage even years later?

 

Personally, I'm more interested in your facts on cancer. Please point to the fallacies in my studies and/or show studies of your own that discredits surgical oncology, flat cancer survival rates, and/or homeopathy 100% prevents/somewhat treats cancer.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Not imply, just don't have a big push for it...I am at work and you want me to read ALL your articles or leave... man that will get a great respond if you said that to a co-worker...what a ignorant statement...I can't read all those articles in a few hours, but you might believe that YOU could because you post these articles that post % in relative terms and you don't look at the actually numbers...You my friend have to get paid to give vaccines or you just can't read or care about learning and stuck in your ways of reading abstracts...I will post back on more of your articles as soon as I am able to...

 

You said you could post several. I assumed they were easy to find. My mistake. Do it at your leisure.

[mdebord]

Despite the fact that all your arguments seem to be centered around absolute vs relative risk, you do not seem to have a good grasp on these. I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt as a rational person. For anyone else who's interested in that article, it really is an excellent read. And now I'm really done.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

So when my CDC article, that cites multiple studies, say 100% prevention in college age students, I'm pretty sure that is 100% either in absolute or relative terms.

[andersenpa]

"Is all about" means that someone cares more about a quick, easy fix to get the patient out of the office/ED so they provider can see more patients and make more $, again, never did I say they NEVER practiced prevention, they put it on the back burner.

 

Sorry that's utter BS. Say what you say and stand by it, or don't say it at all. Don't be wishy washy.

Again, you need to open your view of western medicine (which you are allegedly training to do). I gave some concrete examples in my practice of the heave emphasis on primary and secondary prevention. It's pervasive in medicine. I never pull rank on students just because they're students but in this case you really don't have any perspective and you are arguing against (collectively on this forum) probably hundreds of years of experience.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

The CAM paper was crap and did not prove anything, also it did not even have stats nor did it compare CAM to EBM. The other two sites had references, but not research articles. When I tried to located them I never could find a single research article, it just kept bringing me back to macmillan.org.uk. Find real research and not .ORG telling numbers that are relative...

 

Colon cancer survival has increased 17 fold is an absolute number.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

This is from the study. You didn't look very deep.

 

"The key findings are:

• People now live nearly six times longer after their cancer diagnosis than was the case 40 years ago.

• Overall median survival time 40 years ago was one year. These latest figures predict median survival time is now nearly six years.

• For 11 of the 20 cancers studied median survival time is now over five years.

• For six cancers median survival time has been more than 10 years since the early 1970s.

• But for nine of the 20 cancers studied, median survival time is three years or less, with little improvement since the 1970s.

• The biggest improvement in median survival time has been for colon cancer with a 17-fold increase from around seven months to ten years.

• Breast cancer median survival time has doubled since the 1970s and has been more than 10 years since at least the early 1990s.

• Lung cancer median survival time has barely risen, from 11 to 20 weeks.

• Pancreatic cancer median survival time has hardly risen at all."

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

People with colon cancer live 17 fold longer. It is an absolute number, it is not a five year survival rate, and it unrealistic to create a study that follows people for 40 years. So many patients would stop filling out the survey it would be useless.

 

I quit.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

No one here has argued about cancer rates, but nice straw man argument.

[True Anomaly]

I'm going to suggest something to the rest of you who continue to post on this thread (except tah, who is hopelessly clueless)- post your studies for the benefit of students who read this thread. Don't post it to try to sway this "character", because it's hopeless. Do what you can do help other students who read this thread and may have doubts in their minds. Otherwise, you're gonna drive yourselves crazy trying to sway tah to the standard of care that we all practice, but that he somehow won't be able to practice once he's "supposedly" a PA.

[True Anomaly]

Don't quit, I posted research article after research article and you still don't see the point of absolute vs relative. How do you know it is not a five-year survival rate? So, if there is no research article treading the 17 fold life expectancy then how can they prove it is a 17 fold increase?

 

"I'm right, you're wrong, don't you get it???? How many more obscure articles do I have to post before you see that I'm right and you're wrong, no matter what??"

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/17/6/1282.full.pdf

“Because placebo-controlled trials of the influenza vaccine are considered unethical in the elderly and/or at risk populations, recent studies have focused on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in preventing hospitalization for "pneumonia and influenza", all respiratory conditions, and deaths.”

“A 3-yr study of 3 – 5 yr old children found suboptimal antibody responses to inactivated influenza vaccine and little or no protection against infection [35].”

 

[35]. Couch RB, Keitel WA, Cate TR et al. Prevention of influenza virus infections by current inactivated influenza vaccines. In: Brown LE, Hampson AW, Webster RG, eds. Options for the control of influenza. III. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486837/pdf/bullwho00399-0077.pdf

Clinical and epidemiological evaluation of a live, cold-adapted influenza vaccine for 3-1 4-year-olds

 

Table 2 shows 2 out of 18 cases, the vaccine caused a febrile reaction.

 

Table 5 shows the first year for vaccine (151/1224=12.3%) and placebo (184/1191=15.4%) for an absolute benefit of 15.4% - 12.3% = 3.1% and second year for vaccine (30/220=13.5%) and placebo (28/195=14.3%) for an absolute benefit 14.3% - 13.6% = 0.7%.

Here is one article from your CDC college flu study.

 

Missed this one. If you read my CDC article, it states that children under 6 (and elderly) have poorer immune systems that do not develop titer as easily. For young children they recommended a change in vaccination standards compared to those for adults.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Don't quit, I posted research article after research article and you still don't see the point of absolute vs relative. How do you know it is not a five-year survival rate? So, if there is no research article treading the 17 fold life expectancy then how can they prove it is a 17 fold increase?

 

They did trend it in a study. I said forty years is feasible, not ten years which is the 17 fold increase from 7 months. I understand relative and absolute numbers. I showed that in immunocompetent persons, vaccination is nearly 100% effective (in one study it was 100% effective) for that strain (and very high for genetically similar viruses) of flu. You post studies based on the immunocompromised (which really are studies on secondary illnesses and disagree with you in the conclusions) and want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

As for chemo, you have only posted cancer RATES. I've posted studies confirming the effectiveness of chemo and surgical resection. You claim they are relative and not absolute numbers, but saying "we lived one year with colon cancer and now we live 10" is absolute. But let's say all those 10 year survivalist croaked 10 years and one day. You still haven't shown an alternative treatment study.

 

::drops microphone and walks off stage::

[deborah212]

I just don't understand and am serious trying to figure out why all you PAs, PA students are against seeing what I am seeing. Absolute numbers DO NOT lie and tell the real truth. What is wrong with that?

 

What year are you in PA school, and what are you currently studying?

How have your course directors responded to your concerns?

[thinkertdm]

http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/17/6/1282.full.pdf

“Because placebo-controlled trials of the influenza vaccine are considered unethical in the elderly and/or at risk populations, recent studies have focused on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in preventing hospitalization for "pneumonia and influenza", all respiratory conditions, and deaths.”

“A 3-yr study of 3 – 5 yr old children found suboptimal antibody responses to inactivated influenza vaccine and little or no protection against infection [35].”

 

[35]. Couch RB, Keitel WA, Cate TR et al. Prevention of influenza virus infections by current inactivated influenza vaccines. In: Brown LE, Hampson AW, Webster RG, eds. Options for the control of influenza. III. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486837/pdf/bullwho00399-0077.pdf

Clinical and epidemiological evaluation of a live, cold-adapted influenza vaccine for 3-1 4-year-olds

 

Table 2 shows 2 out of 18 cases, the vaccine caused a febrile reaction.

 

Table 5 shows the first year for vaccine (151/1224=12.3%) and placebo (184/1191=15.4%) for an absolute benefit of 15.4% - 12.3% = 3.1% and second year for vaccine (30/220=13.5%) and placebo (28/195=14.3%) for an absolute benefit 14.3% - 13.6% = 0.7%.

Here is one article from your CDC college flu study.

WTF are you talking about? Table 5 of your second linked article shows the incidence of "common" childhood diseases in both groups. The vaccine wasn't given to prevent any of those diseases. I don't follow how you are getting any sort of "benefit" measurement from that table. It shows that 6 people given the vaccine also happened to develop conjunctivitis within 6 months of being given the vaccine, and that 6 people who were not given the vaccine also developed conjunctivitis.

I think the table you want is Table 7.

 

Also, you are right, Table 2 does show febrile reactions, but not out of 18 cases. The n (that's the number you have to look at for how many people are in a group) ranges between 39 and 168 people. In the smallest group of 39, 6 people developed a febrile reaction. In the matched placebo group of 50, 5 had a febrile reaction, but since they were given a placebo, it wasn't to the vaccine.

So, I have no idea what you are talking about there.

[True Anomaly]

How are my research articles not valid? You post them, I read them and interpret the numbers in to absolute numbers to make more sense and clear on the benefit. Please tell me TA how you can dispute my numbers? Check my calculations and see for yourself, are you angry that I show there is little value to what a lot of you practice or think is useful (flu shots)? I just don't understand and am serious trying to figure out why all you PAs, PA students are against seeing what I am seeing. Absolute numbers DO NOT lie and tell the real truth. What is wrong with that?

 

I haven't posted anything, because I realized a long time ago that you will either not see or try to pick apart any study that I post, so it's not worth it. I realize we all look alike, but I havent posted anything. And I won't. So save your breath.

 

And believe me, I'm far from angry. I have no delusions about what I do. I practice evidence-based emergency medicine, as do my colleagues, whether they be physicians or PA's. I'm actually highly entertained by someone who rails so hard against Western medicine, but is trying to become a PA. It amuses me to no end.

 

Because you obviously chose the wrong field (you should've become an ND), you don't realize how moronic you look to everyone else on this board. Contrarian (as usual) had you pegged from the start- you suffer from mental illness- you perseverate to a degree that I've never seen a "professional" do.

[True Anomaly]

Isn't the point of reading a research article to pick it apart and make sure the numbers are accurate and expressed in the correct manner and not in some "relative" manipulative state. If you did practice EBM you would read the articles and understand how relative benefit does not tell you the real benefit. Read any STATS book and it will tell you or you can read my postings from above on absolute risk vs relative risk. Again, I have ZERO problem is Western medicine, I have a problem with EBM that is not correct or in a manipulative state of numbers that makes you think something is working when it is NOT. Ask any of your colleagues at work about my articles and show them relative numbers and absolute numbers and have them decide. You just don't want to admit you have been looking at articles all wrong since you have been practicing. I don't recall contrarian EVER pegging me, all his post where nothing except words in my mouth I never said and making fun of CAM. He never once had a valid point or a valid article because he/she would know I would show him/her the real numbers and contrarian would be like you, shocked, at the fact the AMA, ACS, big pharma, etc puts their numbers in relative terms to make one think there is a benefit, change, etc...

 

I'll give you credit for two things:

 

One, you learned how to use the "quote" function.

 

Two, you (allegedly) found a PA program to accept you as a student. That is quite an amazing feat. And this time, I'm not kidding.

 

You know what you should do? We're obviously too dumb to see the error of our ways. You should go here: http://www.studentdoctor.net. They're far more intelligent and receptive to CAM. And they always talk about absolute vs relative numbers. They LIVE to talk about it.

[Contrarian]

Hmm...

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

This whole thread:

 

[Joebird23]

I'll give you credit for two things:

 

One, you learned how to use the "quote" function.

 

Two, you (allegedly) found a PA program to accept you as a student. That is quite an amazing feat. And this time, I'm not kidding.

 

You know what you should do? We're obviously too dumb to see the error of our ways. You should go here: www.studentdoctor.net. They're far more intelligent and receptive to CAM. And they always talk about absolute vs relative numbers. They LIVE to talk about it.

 

LMAO! True Anomaly you may have just become one of my favorite posters on here haha.

 

 

Tah, I honestly think you mean well but your one of those people that despite having 200 witnesses, DNA evidence, and video surveillance you did the crime you'll still say "i'm inoccent it is all a conspriacy"

 

 

It's like arguing against people that do not "believe" in Evolution. Despite 95% of Scientists "believing" in it there are still people that take the word of the 5% that come up with obscure non peer reviewed articles stating it is false. They take random articles from years ago on random websites they have googled and think they have somehow discovered in a 5 minute search what 95% of Scientists have been studying for YEARS!

 

Same thing is true here. One guy with obscure articles that thinks his "research" is somehow more relevant than the MAJORITY of NP's, MD's, PA's, Scientists etc. that have been researching this for YEARS!

 

This is delusional close minded behavior. But thankfully we are fortunate to have this great savior that has not completed PA school to "educate" all these PA's that have been practicing for YEARS!

 

I think Tah is probably under 25 years old and probably in the 18-21 range due to the immaturity and the think I am right no matter what attitude.

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Don't understand what is so frustrating about relative vs absolute numbers. Have you had stats before or even college algebra, because it seems to me that you can't wrap your head around these simple calculations. Please let me know what I am doing wrong with these calculations.

 

Oh my

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

My impression of tah:

 

[Joelseff]

I really really really don't want to dip my pinky toe in this puddle but i think what tah is missing is that while the vaccine may not be as effective as we hope, due mostly in part to the guessing game that goes into formulating it for the actual viral strains a year in advance, the risk to benefit points to vaccinating vs not. I give my pts the option and most of them take it. What I guess I would ask tah, running the risk of multiple posts, is have you seen adequate data to suggest that we who vaccinate pts are truly killing them. I mean studies that show absolute causality between vaccinations and actual deaths, severe adverse effects etc. That goes for fluoride, mammos, surgery etc....

 

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

All you do oneal is avoid the question. If you are correct in your assumption of these articles then you would prove to me/everyone that statistically significant articles are out there and you would prove to me that my calculations were incorrect and/or used in the wrong manner. Again, please let me know if they are.

 

Not avoiding. i quit. now i have fun.

 

[LT_Oneal_PAC]

Well I truly hope you have learned something and will bring it to your classmates, professors, family and patients. Because it does matter to me and I feel like I need to spread the word and educate on these topics that I truly care about. I am not here to be mean or whatever you may think, I care about others and think we all should be educated on what we are putting in our own bodies and recommended to others to put in theirs...Thanks again Oneal for the pictures and I will love to hear your response if you ever decide to respond to my questions.

 

Ask me if I even took college math, then seem really nice to look rational