Revoking Doctors' License and Limits of Free Speech

[Alcoholic Actuary]

the usual way: batons, rubber bullets and pepper spray

As long as there is a plan...

aa

 

[ksen]

there's always a plan

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No vaccine would be on the market if there wasn't a situation where it was a good idea.

Thus any blanket advice against a vaccine is wrong.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that certain people shouldn't be vaccinated.

A better way to put it, the bar gets higher and higher on safety based on the number of people who will be taking the drug or injection. When nearly 100% of a population takes something, the bar is very very high.

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

What matters is the risk vs the benefit. How many does the drug save, how many does it kill?

(Or in the case of TPA, what's the quality of life? I've heard multiple medical types say they don't feel it actually saves lives, it kills as many as it saves. Every one that I've heard express this says they would want it, though--they'll accept the death risk vs the tremendous quality of life improvement it can bring. I've even heard some say that they would want the drug even if there wasn't any way to establish whether it was a bleeder or a clot type stroke--even though in the bleeder case it's basically a death sentence.)

 

[arkirk]

A better way to put it, the bar gets higher and higher on safety based on the number of people who will be taking the drug or injection. When nearly 100% of a population takes something, the bar is very very high.

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

What matters is the risk vs the benefit. How many does the drug save, how many does it kill?

(Or in the case of TPA, what's the quality of life? I've heard multiple medical types say they don't feel it actually saves lives, it kills as many as it saves. Every one that I've heard express this says they would want it, though--they'll accept the death risk vs the tremendous quality of life improvement it can bring. I've even heard some say that they would want the drug even if there wasn't any way to establish whether it was a bleeder or a clot type stroke--even though in the bleeder case it's basically a death sentence.)

It is silly to argue against the principles involved in vaccinating our population against highly communicable diseases. There should be more research however and more refinement of vaccines to eliminate as many of the side effects as possible. There has been some problems with the preservatives used in vaccines. It seems there should be ever pressing new research to make even old well and heavily used vaccines safer for more people. I think this is probably going on, but have not heard of this research. It would seem we should be able to eventually remove mercury, for example, from vaccines. It is not a component part of antibodies.

 

[untermensche]

A better way to put it, the bar gets higher and higher on safety based on the number of people who will be taking the drug or injection. When nearly 100% of a population takes something, the bar is very very high.

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

What matters is the risk vs the benefit. How many does the drug save, how many does it kill?

(Or in the case of TPA, what's the quality of life? I've heard multiple medical types say they don't feel it actually saves lives, it kills as many as it saves. Every one that I've heard express this says they would want it, though--they'll accept the death risk vs the tremendous quality of life improvement it can bring. I've even heard some say that they would want the drug even if there wasn't any way to establish whether it was a bleeder or a clot type stroke--even though in the bleeder case it's basically a death sentence.)

But tPA is given after there are signs of a stroke.

To do nothing can be pretty bad too, so the risk is something many people take. I doubt it kills as many as it saves but it does kill some.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A better way to put it, the bar gets higher and higher on safety based on the number of people who will be taking the drug or injection. When nearly 100% of a population takes something, the bar is very very high.

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

That is such a bad example seeing people are immunized in very early childhood and what you are talking about isn't something everyone is given. Would you care to join the rest of us in this conversation or would you rather continue to ponder in your Exceptional Land.

 

[jonatha]

Is it common for state medical licensing boards to dictate acceptable/unacceptable medical treatments?

No.

But it is surely common (well, at least possible....) for state medical licensing boards to strip doctors of their license for malpractice.

I guess the AMA rather than the state boards decides what constitutes malpractice?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

What matters is the risk vs the benefit. How many does the drug save, how many does it kill?

(Or in the case of TPA, what's the quality of life? I've heard multiple medical types say they don't feel it actually saves lives, it kills as many as it saves. Every one that I've heard express this says they would want it, though--they'll accept the death risk vs the tremendous quality of life improvement it can bring. I've even heard some say that they would want the drug even if there wasn't any way to establish whether it was a bleeder or a clot type stroke--even though in the bleeder case it's basically a death sentence.)

It is silly to argue against the principles involved in vaccinating our population against highly communicable diseases. There should be more research however and more refinement of vaccines to eliminate as many of the side effects as possible. There has been some problems with the preservatives used in vaccines. It seems there should be ever pressing new research to make even old well and heavily used vaccines safer for more people. I think this is probably going on, but have not heard of this research. It would seem we should be able to eventually remove mercury, for example, from vaccines. It is not a component part of antibodies.

You think there isn't an awful lot of research?

As for mercury--it's not in most vaccines. It never has been a component of any vaccine per se. Where the mercury came from is the preservative that was added to multi-use vials of vaccine. Any vaccine that comes in a single-use needle (and that's most of them) contains no mercury. Furthermore, the mercury was never the dangerous form and it's a tiny bit compared to one's normal environmental exposure. Two ounces of high-mercury fish (say, tuna) has more mercury than a typical vaccine dose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree--you could have something very risky that was given to an awful lot of people. Off the top of my head I come up with TPA. It's extremely dangerous--yet a good idea for most patients with a sufficiently recent clot-type stroke.

That is such a bad example seeing people are immunized in very early childhood and what you are talking about isn't something everyone is given. Would you care to join the rest of us in this conversation or would you rather continue to ponder in your Exceptional Land.

I used it as an example to show the problem with your argument.

What the FDA cares about is the benefit vs the risk, not the risk level itself.

Thus you compare the vaccine harm vs the disease harm and only vaccinate those where the risk is less than the benefit.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

But it is surely common (well, at least possible....) for state medical licensing boards to strip doctors of their license for malpractice.

I guess the AMA rather than the state boards decides what constitutes malpractice?

Unfortunately, they don't strip nearly enough.