[quote="afcjets"Especially considering doctors are not a monolithic group, even regarding certain vaccines,[/quote]

There are pediatricians and infectious diseases specialists who will recommend every vaccine on the schedule.

And there are cranks.

There are not "two valid opinions" on whether vaccines are safe and effective.

If you don't know what an epitope is, if you don't know what a T-cell receptor is, if you don't know what the hypervariable region is on an immunoglobulin, then you lack sufficient education to "do your own research." Go get a Bachelor's in biological sciences and then we'll talk.

afcjets wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Admittedly unscientific, but I was taken aback by a poll in my hometown's local newspaper which shows that a majority of people believe that "They" have a "cure" to both cancer and HIV,

How scientific to you is it that someone who tests HIV positive in the US where only 3 of the 10 proteins on the confirmatory Western blot antibody test react could fly to or have the same sample sent to Australia where they may test negative, where the criteria for a positive result is a minimum of 4 proteins must react?

You think HIV is diagnosed by a Western?

DocLightning wrote:

[quote="afcjets"Especially considering doctors are not a monolithic group, even regarding certain vaccines,

There are pediatricians and infectious diseases specialists who will recommend every vaccine on the schedule.

And there are cranks.

There are not "two valid opinions" on whether vaccines are safe and effective.

If you don't know what an epitope is, if you don't know what a T-cell receptor is, if you don't know what the hypervariable region is on an immunoglobulin, then you lack sufficient education to "do your own research." Go get a Bachelor's in biological sciences and then we'll talk.[/quote]


Thank you for this. Almost every time I hear a patient say "I did my research," it's usually followed by an illogical or medically unsound statement, request, or demand.

I feel bed for you as a pediatrician. In my practice I deal with adults so I am less apprehensive about them refusing as opposed to parents refusing it for their children.

DocLightning wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Especially considering doctors are not a monolithic group, even regarding certain vaccines,

There are pediatricians and infectious diseases specialists who will recommend every vaccine on the schedule.

And there are cranks.

There are not "two valid opinions" on whether vaccines are safe and effective.

If you don't know what an epitope is, if you don't know what a T-cell receptor is, if you don't know what the hypervariable region is on an immunoglobulin, then you lack sufficient education to "do your own research." Go get a Bachelor's in biological sciences and then we'll talk.

If you believe this Open Journal of Pediatrics article from 2012 "Vaccination practices among physicians and their children" you consider a lot of physicians cranks when it comes to their own kids.

"When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%)"


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJPed20120300003_46564276.pdf

DocLightning wrote:

afcjets wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Admittedly unscientific, but I was taken aback by a poll in my hometown's local newspaper which shows that a majority of people believe that "They" have a "cure" to both cancer and HIV,

How scientific to you is it that someone who tests HIV positive in the US where only 3 of the 10 proteins on the confirmatory Western blot antibody test react could fly to or have the same sample sent to Australia where they may test negative, where the criteria for a positive result is a minimum of 4 proteins must react?

You think HIV is diagnosed by a Western?

I did not know the CDC quit recommending the Western blot to diagnose someone as HIV positive in 2014, but ironically not for the reasons I mentioned.

So what I said is true for anyone who tested positive for HIV prior to 2014, a positive result in the US where only 3 of the 10 proteins on a Western Blot (the test recommended by the CDC for 30 years) reacted would be interpreted as negative result if the test were taken instead taken in Australia. I do not consider that to be scientific.

LAX772LR wrote:

Can't go through it again man. Saw wayyyy too many good people die, who had no idea what was happening to them. And today's little fuckwits have had it drilled into their head since birth-- they just clearly don't care. And I suspect that they won't, until they basically see their pals spend the last few months of their lives looking like a living mummy

Been through enough watching one of my best friends seroconvert and he wasn't even a whore. That one time...

Channex757 wrote:

Singing from the same hymn sheet. It's the thought of some kid using PrEP as an excuse to throw all that knowledge and experience away that makes it so dangerous. I also don't trust PrEP to be 100% effective thanks to the sneaky nature of the HIV virus and the way it infects the host.

It's chemical Russian roulette. Nothing can be as effective as a physical barrier, such as a condom. Anyone can go have as much sex as they want as long as it's safe. Sex using PrEP isn't safe unless it's as part of safe sexual practice overall.

Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir) as PrEP is only 95+% effective when taken daily on a strict schedule. Miss a dose the effectiveness drops down.

The ramifications of PrEP are already coming to fruition. Syphilis, chlamydia (in parts of the body rarely scene), and gonorrhea are coming back amongst MSM.

afcjets wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

afcjets wrote:

How scientific to you is it that someone who tests HIV positive in the US where only 3 of the 10 proteins on the confirmatory Western blot antibody test react could fly to or have the same sample sent to Australia where they may test negative, where the criteria for a positive result is a minimum of 4 proteins must react?

You think HIV is diagnosed by a Western?

I did not know the CDC quit recommending the Western blot to diagnose someone as HIV positive in 2014, but ironically not for the reasons I mentioned.

So what I said is true for anyone who tested positive for HIV prior to 2014, a positive result in the US where only 3 of the 10 proteins on a Western Blot (the test recommended by the CDC for 30 years) reacted would be interpreted as negative result if the test were taken instead taken in Australia. I do not consider that to be scientific.

AFAIK, tests now worth their salt are 4th generation ELISA antibody/antigen tests. HIV RNA tests are even faster, but still too late to administer PEP to blast the HIV out of your system.

LAX772LR wrote:

speedygonzales wrote:

Funny that you mention him. He (from what I've read) had a treatable for om cancer with very good chance for recovery, but he chose to listen to quacks instead of physicians, thereby effectively committing a slow and painful suicide.

The type of pancreatic cancer he was diagnosed with had only a 5% chance of stopping the spread via surgery, and he was made aware of that from the moment of discovery (due to treatment for a suspected kidney stone).

He did indeed initially delay any form of surgery or chemo for 9mo, while during that time practicing Eastern remedies that he'd always believed in; but he soon went under the knife for everything from experimental treatments in Switzerland that had never been undertaken before, and a liver transplant, to full genome sequencing-- to help understand predispositional influences on the spread.

Wasn't enough. As it almost never is, with pacreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer, similar to esophageal cancer which my grandfather died of, when you discover it....it's pretty much too late. It's a very sad thing even with modern medicine.

DocLightning wrote:

In fact, Gilead has CURED (not treated) Hepatitis C. And they will sell you that cure for $89,000 per pop or so.

Interesting. One of my good friends got Hep C from an dirty industrial ear piercing. He told me the list price for his medications (without insurance) would have been over $100k.

LAX772LR wrote:

The sex doesn't bother me at all... it's the reckless disregard for everything we've learned.

If this continues, it's only a matter of time before something else pops up, takes everyone by surprise, it'll already be well throughout the population by the time anyone figures out that something is going on, and we're going to have 20yr-olds with spots on their face who look like they're 80.

Can't go through it again man. Saw wayyyy too many good people die, who had no idea what was happening to them. And today's little fuckwits have had it drilled into their head since birth-- they just clearly don't care. And I suspect that they won't, until they basically see their pals spend the last few months of their lives looking like a living mummy

Absolutely something else is going to pop up. HIV itself is an example of that. The previously common STDs, which themselves could result in death, became treatable following the development of antibiotics. HIV already existed, but exploded in this era of naivete. HIV is likely to become treatable, though never 100% curable (neither is gonorrhea as there are resistant strains), and another opportunistic pathogen will take its place. Plus ca change...

LMP737 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

It might be interesting to know how the same population that was polled for this "study" would answer the question:

"Do you agree that the Earth was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago?"


There would probably be a correlation.

It's been my experience that as a rule of thumb people only give credence to something that affects them directly. It's also been my experience that most people are either stupid or poorly educated, and the great majority are an awful combination of both.

afcjets wrote:

Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder
Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder
Hoarding Disorder
Caffeine Withdrawal
Cannabis Withdrawal

How many years did you spend in medical school and residency? All of the above I, as a psychiatrist, can confirm are legitimate problems. Only one of which typically results in the prescription of a pharmaceutica (assuming the physician is responsible). HIV didn't have a name until the early 1980s, so just because something has a name today, doesn't mean it's being contrived.

Pellegrine wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Can't go through it again man. Saw wayyyy too many good people die, who had no idea what was happening to them. And today's little fuckwits have had it drilled into their head since birth-- they just clearly don't care. And I suspect that they won't, until they basically see their pals spend the last few months of their lives looking like a living mummy

Been through enough watching one of my best friends seroconvert and he wasn't even a whore. That one time...

Channex757 wrote:

Singing from the same hymn sheet. It's the thought of some kid using PrEP as an excuse to throw all that knowledge and experience away that makes it so dangerous. I also don't trust PrEP to be 100% effective thanks to the sneaky nature of the HIV virus and the way it infects the host.

It's chemical Russian roulette. Nothing can be as effective as a physical barrier, such as a condom. Anyone can go have as much sex as they want as long as it's safe. Sex using PrEP isn't safe unless it's as part of safe sexual practice overall.

Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir) as PrEP is only 95+% effective when taken daily on a strict schedule. Miss a dose the effectiveness drops down.

The ramifications of PrEP are already coming to fruition. Syphilis, chlamydia (in parts of the body rarely scene), and gonorrhea are coming back amongst MSM.

Indeed. The ramifications of unsafe sex haven't changed.

luckyone wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder
Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder
Hoarding Disorder
Caffeine Withdrawal
Cannabis Withdrawal

How many years did you spend in medical school and residency? All of the above I, as a psychiatrist, can confirm are legitimate problems. Only one of which typically results in the prescription of a pharmaceutica (assuming the physician is responsible). HIV didn't have a name until the early 1980s, so just because something has a name today, doesn't mean it's being contrived.

Zero. I am well aware they are a problem. If you are a psychiatrist you might find the documentary on youtube I linked above interesting. I am sure there is a lot you will disagree with and a lot you might agree with.

afcjets wrote:

If you believe this Open Journal of Pediatrics article from 2012 "Vaccination practices among physicians and their children" you consider a lot of physicians cranks when it comes to their own kids.

"When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%)"

I don't believe the "Open Journal" because it is not well-recognized or peer reviewed.

That said, pediatric specialists do not vaccinate their patients because they are specialists. It is a general pediatrician's job to vaccinate their patients.

I think 9% is a bit high but I have worked with a few primary care physicians who thought it was OK to deviate from the CDC schedule.

EVERY SINGLE ONE SUCKED. One lost his job after giving two patients C. diff with unnecessary antibiotics AND permanently blinding a patient by treating what turned out to be zoster on the V2 distribution on the face with steroids instead of acyclovir. Another has the worst quality and patient satisfaction scores of the entire group. Bob Sears is at risk of losing his license.

Go on. Keep arguing with me. *rubs hands*