Would you trade diarrehea for death? Maybe convulsions?

[Athena]

FDA ties pneumonia deaths to infant vaccine
Agency panel considering approval of oral medicine for diarrhea virus

updated 8:20 a.m. PT, Fri., Feb. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - GlaxoSmithKline Plc's rotavirus vaccine is associated with increased pneumonia-related deaths and other adverse reactions, U.S. regulatory staff said in documents posted on Friday.

The review comes ahead of a Food and Drug Administration advisory meeting next Wednesday to consider approval of the oral vaccine to prevent the most common cause of severe diarrhea and dehydration among infants and young children in the world.

FDA staff said its analysis of 11 studies revealed that in the largest trial, there was a statistically significant increase in deaths related to pneumonia compared with placebo, documents posted on the FDA's Web site said.

That study, which enrolled about 63,000 children, also found an increase in convulsions in children given the drug, named Rotarix. Another study found an increased rate of bronchitis, compared with placebo.

In a conclusion section, the FDA documents noted the pneumonia-related deaths and convulsions, but did not appear to make a recommendation to the advisory panel.

That expert panel will weigh the staff review, but makes its own recommendation, which is typically followed by the FDA.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Wow. This is why I dont trust half the vaccines out there.

[TXChris]

Yep, gotta love government agencies. They sure are efficient and effective. :rolleyes:

[Athena]

To be fair, depending on the prevalence of the pneumonia, bronchitis or convulsions, the vaccine may be well worth it. Diarrhea can cause significant health problems in children, including death. Are the problems associated with diarrhea more common than those associated with pnuemonia, bronchitis or convulsions? Quite possibly, in which case, the vaccine is the lesser of two evils.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Certainly.

Im not sure of the standards that have to be met before they hit the market, but you would expect, learning in hindsight that certain vaccines have terrible side effects, that these things would be known, tested thoroughly in advance before being administered to children on a regular basis, and that the appropriate warnings would be given out, anyway. I dunno...maybe they do. My children have had many vaccinations, and I cant recall a damn thing that was said about them. I just blindingly say ok to all of them.

[Athena]

My children have had many vaccinations, and I cant recall a damn thing that was said about them. I just blindingly say ok to all of them.

The information is out there on any drug offered to you. I would consider it to be your responsibility to inform yourself prior to administration of said drug or vaccine, rather than it being your doctor's responsibility to assume you are ignorant. ;)

[CPL CHUD]

The information is out there on any drug offered to you. I would consider it to be your responsibility to inform yourself prior to administration of said drug or vaccine, rather than it being your doctor's responsibility to assume you are ignorant. ;)

It's the doctor's job to assume you're an idiot when it comes to medicine. Why else would you even go to see them!?

[Athena]

It's the doctor's job to assume you're an idiot when it comes to medicine. Why else would you even go to see them!?

You are a consumer. It is your responsibility to ask questions. When I see my doctor, she doesn't run down all the possible side-effects, listing the probability of each one occurring. Perhaps, if I asked, "Are there any side effects associated with this drug?" she would give me a quick run down, but would likely direct me to the drug maker's website or informational pamphlet if I required more detailed information.

My doctor appointments take long enough. I can't imagine how long I'd be stuck there if I didn't bother to do my own research.

You are seeing your doctor for their expertise. They exercise that expertise by prescribing you the appropriate medicine, not by spoon-feeding you details about the drug that are public and readily available if you don't even care enough to ask the question.

[impqueen]

It's the doctor's job to assume you're an idiot when it comes to medicine. Why else would you even go to see them!?

Seriously, Chud, don't even try. Or we'll end up back on licensure being unnecessary in a free market economy for medical professionals, and i just had to let that one go and still got called a coward. ;)

I don't develop immunity to most vaccines due to my weird immune system (i've had chicken pox three times). I won't get flu shots, because dead vaccine or no I always get really sick on them. I don't vaccinate my pets as often as I'm supposed to, and I don't do elective vaccines for my kids unless I've researched them. Too much scary stuff happens when you start jacking around with microorganisms, and they don't always act the way they're supposed to once they get inside the body.

[Athena]

Seriously, Chud, don't even try. Or we'll end up back on licensure being unnecessary in a free market economy for medical professionals, and i just had to let that one go and still got called a coward. ;)


This isn't about the free market. This is about being an informed consumer. I'd think you, of all people, would advocate that. :confused:

The information is out there. People should be encouraged to do their own research. Lord knows...An arrogant doctor is a dangerous thing, and there are plenty out there.

My sister's doctor tried to downplay the severity of the side-effects associated with Lupron. Had she not done her own research, she could have been stuck with wicked side effects lasting several months...Side effects that can be worse than the condition it's intended to treat.

[CPL CHUD]

You are seeing your doctor for their expertise. They exercise that expertise by prescribing you the appropriate medicine, not by spoon-feeding you details about the drug that are public and readily available if you don't even care enough to ask the question.Nope. Nobody would go to see them if they already knew everything about what medicine to take, or how to fix whatever ailment they have. If they did then doctors would be part of a really shitty franchise. I don't go to the doctor's office if I know how to fix what's ailing me and haven't for the last half decade or so, probably longer, but this is all besides the point, because I know for a fact that everthing I've ever been prescribed has had a label or packet they shoved my way with possible side effects. Everytime. And every doctor I've ever talked to has told me if there is any researched major possible side effect to whatever medicine he or she wanted to prescribe.

It just sounds like your sending your mighty consumer dollar to shitty doctors. I can't imagine if you took something and suddenly died puking out your intestines and when questioned your doctor that prescribed it said "well, she should of looked up the side effects on the interweb like a smart consumer would", and you'd agree....from HELL!

[impqueen]

This isn't about the free market. This is about being an informed consumer. I'd think you, of all people, would advocate that. :confused:



I do. Hence the winky-smile jokey face. ;)

I'm all about people doing their own research and advocating for their own health care, and especially their children's heath care, even more especially when there's not an emergency situation at hand. I also think that in a case like you've posted here, where there is a real and serious danger that can arise, a doctor has a duty to tell the patient about it and not assume the patient will have researched their health care options thoroughly.

[Athena]

Nope. Nobody would go to see them if they already knew everything about what medicine to take, or how to fix whatever ailment they have. If they did then doctors would be part of a really shitty franchise. I don't go to the doctor's office if I know how to fix what's ailing me and haven't for the last half decade or so, probably longer, but this is all besides the point, because I know for a fact that everthing I've ever been prescribed has had a label or packet they shoved my way with possible side effects. Everytime. And every doctor I've ever talked to has told me if there is any researched major possible side effect to whatever medicine he or she wanted to prescribe.

It just sounds like your sending your mighty consumer dollar to shitty doctors. I can't imagine if you took something and suddenly died puking out your intestines and when questioned your doctor that prescribed it said "well, she should of looked up the side effects on the interweb like a smart consumer would", and you'd agree....from HELL!

Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). Taking my argument to the most extreme to try and illustrate it's ridiculousness. The only thing that's ridiculous is the way you're trying to twist it.

Should I just assume that any doctor I see is proficient and telling me everything I need to know? It's my body - perhaps I should try and verify for myself? Be sure to ask questions? Read the pamphlets they offer?

For example - antidepressants slightly increase the suicide risk in minors. While this information was available, it wasn't being tossed out there by those prescribing it, because it would discourage the patient. After all, the increased risk was only slight. Still, if your child was being prescribed antidepressants, wouldn't you like to know everything that could do wrong, even if your doctor considered insignificant?

I can't believe I'm being berated for researching things I'm being told to ingest and suggesting others do the same. It's your body. Take responsibility for it. :rolleyes:

[Athena]

I also think that in a case like you've posted here, where there is a real and serious danger that can arise, a doctor has a duty to tell the patient about it and not assume the patient will have researched their health care options thoroughly.

I wholeheartedly agree. However, with a lot of these vaccines, the risk is considered insignificant from a scientific standpoint. What determines whether or not a doctor should volunteer that information? If the risk is low, he or she may fail to inform you so as not to discourage you from seeking that particular course of therapy. If you want the whole story, you should get it for yourself.

[CPL CHUD]

I also think that in a case like you've posted here, where there is a real and serious danger that can arise, a doctor has a duty to tell the patient about it and not assume the patient will have researched their health care options thoroughly.I totally agree. I don't think we are refering to minute side effects. I think they are moraly and legally obligated to tell patients if the medicine they are subscribing has any major side effects. It's all part of reaching an harmonious relationship to the patient, or consumer, if they are going to continue their franchise and get repeat customers. It would be criminaly negligent for a doctor to not inform the patient, to the best of his or her knowledge, the diagnosis and the positive and negative sides of the treatment they recommend when the client's, or patient's, livelyhood and health are at major stake.

[CPL CHUD]

Taking my argument to the most extreme to try and illustrate it's ridiculousness. If it looks ridiculious when I illustrate it's natural logical conclusion then maybe you should alter your stance a bit. I'm not berating anybody for doing personal research, but suggesting that a doctor has no obligation to tell you about major potential side effects of a medicine or medical treatment he is prescribing is ludacrous. There would be zero confidence in the medical practice if this was the case. And I'm aware of the double effect of medicine and where it is applicable to minor cases and major cases of health.

[Athena]

I never said they weren't obligated to disclose major side effects. My point is, their opinion of "major" may differ from yours. Typically, "major" side effects are those that are common. Even severe side effects may not be mentioned by your doctor if the risk is low. This is absolutely the case with things like vaccines. The risk of side effects tends to be low and will not be mentioned.

I responded like I did to Lieman's comment because people need to be more involved in their own health care. The context was specific. The doctor probably didn't mention any side effects because the risk was very low. People ought to expect this from doctors and act accordingly. The sentiment was solid, but the way I chose to phrase it was glib. You took it out of context and exaggerated it. Hardly a natural logical conclusion.

[Miss. Hill]

I had researched the vaccinations before I allowed my children to have them, I was overwhelmed as the information I found was contradicting. I tried a good ole pro's vs con's list and talked over my findings with the Pediatrician to make my final decision. I do research before myself or any family member begins any prescribed medication or vaccination. It would be difficult for a doctor to truly describe all possible side effects, but in most cases side effects are listed on a sheet when you get the prescription filled.

Imp,

Did I read you had chicken pox 3 times? Wow that sucks! :(

[CPL CHUD]

I never said they weren't obligated to disclose major side effects. My point is, their opinion of "major" may differ from yours. Typically, "major" side effects are those that are common. Even severe side effects may not be mentioned by your doctor if the risk is low. This is absolutely the case with things like vaccines. The risk of side effects tends to be low and will not be mentioned.

I agree, I never said people weren't better off educating themselves about their own health care either, but before you made it seem like you thought that it was the consumers or patients sole responsibility to know the major side effects of these medicines, like doctors could go all willy nilly prescribing anything they wanted without disclosing potential health risks or taking any responsibility at all. And I don't want to get into an arguement about what constitutes as major risk. We all can all approximate what that means.

We're cool.....you punk ass.

[Athena]

We're cool.....you punk ass.

Were we ever?







Jerk. :p

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I had researched the vaccinations before I allowed my children to have them, I was overwhelmed as the information I found was contradicting. I tried a good ole pro's vs con's list and talked over my findings with the Pediatrician to make my final decision. I do research before myself or any family member begins any prescribed medication or vaccination. It would be difficult for a doctor to truly describe all possible side effects, but in most cases side effects are listed on a sheet when you get the prescription filled.

Imp,

Did I read you had chicken pox 3 times? Wow that sucks! :(

My ex is freaky about this...and she used to say the same thing. Lots of contradictions, and probably lots of bullshit. Half the meds today that exist, Im pretty sure we dont need.