So you think some vaccines are good. How would you argue against someone who felt all vaccines were bad all the time. Would you appeal to evidence and the scientific consensus?
-
-
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @gorskon and
Vaccines and drugs, though "good" in some circumstances, all have risks. Why not try to figure out why and to whom bad reactions occur instead of denying them?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jorient @JHowardBrainMD and
I notice you avoided answering my question: Which vaccines on the CDC's recommended childhood vaccine schedule do you personally consider safe and effective? Be specific and justify your answers.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
It's a simple question: Which vaccines on the CDC's recommended childhood vaccine schedule do you personally consider safe and effective? Be specific and justify your answers.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Note that I will keep asking this question from time to time until I get an answer.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @JHowardBrainMD and
I don't give one-size-fits-all advice on how doctors should treat their patients. You apparently do.
12 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you follow the recommendations of your medical college or do you not?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ladybugobgyn @gorskon and
Like the one that held hemodialysis to be never indicated, or the one that demanded Halstead radical mastectomies for all breast cancers, or Billroth II gastrectomies for peptic ulcers?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jorient @ladybugobgyn and
Another self own. You are showing that when evidence shows a treatment doesn’t work medicine adjusts (though too slowly.) This shows that is vaccines were dangerous the truth could not be suppressed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JHowardBrainMD @jorient and
Yep. In my talk to the medical students, I discuss the Halstead radical mastectomy, explaining how Halstead achieved much higher survival rates than his contemporaries. I also explain how less radical surgery didn't become safe until the rise of adjuvant radiation and chemo.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
You see, back in Victorian times, surgery, and surgery alone, could cure breast cancer. There was no adjuvant radiation therapy. There was no effective chemotherapy. Those took decades to develop, perfect, and validate. So it made sense that more radical surgery would work better
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @JHowardBrainMD and
That being said, I also point out how, when I was in medical school in the 1980s, I never saw a radical mastectomy, although I did see the occasional patient who had had one 10-30 years earlier.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon @JHowardBrainMD and
I've also said that radical mastectomy probably outlived its usefulness by at least a decade, maybe two. However, it wasn't until the results of NSABP B-04 were published in 1977 that there was good RCT evidence that total mastectomy was just as effective as radical mastectomy.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.