Dr. Chip writes:
SO, AOA shows us the government line and entirely leaves out the opposition. Situation normal.
Without taking a side please look at the details of the other view which is in fact looking at the risk versus benefit issues that physicians have to look into, discuss intelligently and then resolve with patient input as to what they, the patients, are planning, from which to risk in order to take benefit.
This is the physician in the trenches issue that government, MOC, MOL, OCC, FSMB, ABIM and IOM continues to ignore.
HPV controversy continues in the news in a formidable way. How do we reconcile as physicians in a way that patients can actually understand, a clear division in the professional community of the facts as they are stated. The organizations that are supposed to clarify these things come into serious question when they continue to fail to reveal the complete truths that they themselves publish but refuse to discuss when pressed especially on the increases in risk factors.
The anti HPV groups cite Sanevax .org ( http://sanevax.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/VAERS-CHARTS-NOVEMBER-2013GlobalAll.pdf ) who’s data comes directly from the CDC VAERS database recording adverse events in vaccines. (look at this cite today and see why there might be concern for us to discuss)
Who is telling the truth? Until both sides all reveal all the data so that others can process that data independently, what are we to say to our educated patients that bring in these arguments to discuss. We are left to decide for ourselves and frankly the decision is not so clear as a risk benefit decision.
This is happening across the pharmacological world’s newest releases of information as the apparent risk versus benefit decisions become more complex with higher revelation of serious side effects potentials in so many drugs and with such large numbers of drugs being removed or black labeled. Who do we trust as professionals? Our own experience usually trumps everything else.
No one is collecting that particular information be cause it is considered anecdotal and that is in fact where the decision are being made. The practice of medicine considers human conditions with a background of science and statistics but the final decisions are made in the here and now of an “N” of one and an observation of the patient (with no “s” on the end) response. It is never a “population medicine decision”. The statistics in the VAERS database are not something to be dismissed. Where is the truth in this for any given person? If physicians are not making this recommendation often enough, there is concern in the public not to, that is big enough for physicians to consider the patient opinion valid enough until proven otherwise.
Education is the answer to all these questions, not brute force, not government edict. Take the profit out of this for the government and all of its employes and lets see what happens to the risk benefit ration then.