We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
If we are to control our own destinies, we have to switch our brains back on and come to our medical consultations with plenty of research done, able to use the relevant jargon. If we can’t do this ourselves we need to identify someone in our social or family network who can do so on our behalf.
This kind of research is g-loaded, and people who cannot do it are less likely to know people who can (with the caveat that elderly people with declining cognitive function may well have children who are sharp). I don't think there is a simple solution to this problem. Higher-IQ people are also more likely to have health insurance.
Hertz recently wrote a book "Eyes Wide Open: How to Make Smart Decisions in a Confusing World".
Large epidemiological studies of almost an entire population in Scotland have found that intelligence (as measured by an IQ-type test) in childhood predicts substantial differences in adult morbidity and mortality, including deaths from cancers and cardiovascular diseases. These relations remain significant after controlling for socioeconomic variables. One possible, partial explanation of these results is that intelligence enhances individuals' care of their own health because it represents learning, reasoning, and problem-solving skills useful in preventing chronic disease and accidental injury and in adhering to complex treatment regimens.
Well, if we taught basic health and nutrition in public schools we could probably correct some of this. But we don't. And then we send them to the cafeteria to have a giant plate of carbs for lunch, and if they are lucky, a tiny iceberg salad that they can slather in ranch dressing.
A more intelligent person is more likely to discover, entirely on their own, what proper nutrition and health is. We basically have left the entire population of the US to their own devices when it comes to basic health, and look where it's gotten us...
If we are to control our own destinies, we have to switch our brains back on and come to our medical consultations with plenty of research done, able to use the relevant jargon.
Of course, as soon as you start to do SERIOUS research into anything medical-- and use the appropriate "jargon" (though I prefer "terminology" here because some of it is very definitely correct in a legitimate sense) then you begin to realize that you sound very much like a person who is at least possibly Munchausen.
So while I can say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it is NOT a good feeling to be in the 1% of patients with an unusual presentation of some unusual condition... and to get the feeling over and over and over again that you know more about current research and best practices than the physician(s) that you're dealing with.
... NYT essay... "Why We Make Bad Decisions... book "Eyes Wide Open: How to Make Smart Decisions in a Confusing World". ... paper "Intelligence Predicts Health and Longevity, but Why?" by Gottfredson and Deary
Fascinating. I'll be reading this again and processing more it.
Reading that people tend to ignore or filter out information which does not agree with they want to hear brings to mind the saying "A word to the wise is sufficient".
The propensity for some to "seek more but not necessarily appropriate care when cost is no barrier" jumps out at me. The benefits of a growth mindset become apparent: I may not know about this... YET. This mindset may spark the curiosity to learn... especially for those who may be "conceptualizing health self-care as a job".
The phrase "low levels of oxidative stress and good antioxidant defenses" brings to mind another recent article which shared the effects of stress on lowering IQ.
Very interesting Bostonian. In my family of origin my mother considered the skills of researching before doctoring to be essential as well as bringing an apt advocate when you were too incapacitated to do it yourself.
Our experiences have validated the importance of this as we have often sought variations in our treatment and more quickly found answers that have improved our outcomes. Frankly, you do receive better care in hospitals and nursing homes if someone intelligent is there with you checking on things.
My eldest brother finished Med school at 23 and gave us a medical diagnostic book when I was 10. It fascinated me and I soon became the family diagnostician in the younger group. (I am one of eight children.) Because of that book and my urging, my older sister made it to the hospital before her appendix ruptured--my mother had thought she was exaggerating as she was prone to do. It did burst just before surgery but it could have been worse. I also diagnosed correctly my younger brother's Crohn's disease when he was 13 among other things.
I generally find it interesting that the demographic with concerns and making alternative choices with regards to vaccines and hospital-based childbirth is most often highly educated and likely higher g. The connection with longer breastfeeding and higher IQ interests me as well. I've found in my small group of friends with higher LOG kids that most went well beyond the average 6-9months that other around us were doing... Personally my son was 3.5yrs old when he stopped.
There could also be the reverse connection in that our IQ s are higher simply because our bodies function better (ie genetic advantage). I haven't read the article yet but I'm about to.
Very interesting Bostonian. In my family of origin my mother considered the skills of researching before doctoring to be essential as well as bringing an apt advocate when you were too incapacitated to do it yourself.
Our experiences have validated the importance of this as we have often sought variations in our treatment and more quickly found answers that have improved our outcomes. Frankly, you do receive better care in hospitals and nursing homes if someone intelligent is there with you checking on things.
My eldest brother finished Med school at 23 and gave us a medical diagnostic book when I was 10. It fascinated me and I soon became the family diagnostician in the younger group. (I am one of eight children.) Because of that book and my urging, my older sister made it to the hospital before her appendix ruptured--my mother had thought she was exaggerating as she was prone to do. It did burst just before surgery but it could have been worse. I also diagnosed correctly my younger brother's Crohn's disease when he was 13 among other things.
I generally find it interesting that the demographic with concerns and making alternative choices with regards to vaccines and hospital-based childbirth is most often highly educated and likely higher g. The connection with longer breastfeeding and higher IQ interests me as well. I've found in my small group of friends with higher LOG kids that most went well beyond the average 6-9months that other around us were doing... Personally my son was 3.5yrs old when he stopped.
I stopped nursing ds11 around the same time--3.5 years.
I generally find it interesting that the demographic with concerns and making alternative choices with regards to vaccines and hospital-based childbirth is most often highly educated and likely higher g.
Well, to be fair, some of that same group also embraces homeopathy and crystal healing... and persists in believing any number of things (Nitrogen in tires = better mileage, urban legends, Snopes items galore, etc.) that have fairly conclusively been demonstrated to be untrue or unsound in principle/theory.
So I'm not sure that is a valid conclusion, really. I also think that there's a particular educational attainment level for which this is true, and that as one goes beyond that level, it becomes far LESS true. I don't know anyone in our peer group (STEM advanced degrees) who has opted for non-vax (other than for medically endorsed reasons), for example. I know only two who opted to home-birth, and even so, not for a first delivery and only with quite low-risk pregnancies.
I'm willing to believe that self-care is g-loaded, all right-- but particularly so for those who HAVE particular risk factors or chronic illness, because outcomes are just so bad there without it.
But the converse probably not-so-much. I think it's a matter of "those who do well are either lucky or smart" and the category of those who DON'T do well is composed of everyone else. My DH's pithy hypothesis is that everyone gets either a brain or a guardian angel.
If you're genetically destined for Huntington's, Marfan, refractory asthma, hemophilia, an immune deficiency, or have a double BRCA1 mutation, well-- you can improve your own personal management, but you aren't going to avoid all the bad stuff just with informed decision-making and "smart choices." The best choices in the world are still going to lead to not great quality-of-life for some of those people.
I get pretty testy with victim-blaming, or anything that SEEMS to go down that road, though. Too much genetic stuff in my own family, I guess. Everything else is basically window dressing at that point.
My perspective is that the brightest of those people often have better outcomes because they can discriminate on the basis of plausibility-- and that this leads them to reject anything that is pseudo-science rather than the real thing. The merely "pretty bright" are far more vulnerable to that stuff.
Consider two people with aggressive metastatic cancers. One of them goes the intensive allopathic route and ignores all the alt-med material that friends and family are offering up.
The other spends a lot of time and energy trying "it all" rather than being focused on their oncologist's recommendations, and is ultimately taking a lot of antioxidants that wind up diminishing the effectiveness of chemo and reduce tolerance for radiation. They also don't believe in vaccination necessarily; thinking that the natural illnesses are not that serious and that better immunity is obtained via wild-type exposures, and that "just stay away if you're sick" is a fine way to minimize spread of illness-- and so do their friends. So treatment has to be stopped while the person is hospitalized for influenza, then for chicken pox.
All other things being equal, the former quite probably gets a better outcome than the latter. I think that this is probably more closely tied to risk-aversion than to LOG, however-- or that it ties to both things.
My DH and I are pathologically risk-averse. Bottom line.
But I'm also a huge believer in Murphy's Law along with Occam's Razor-- and if I wasn't, life with my DD would have made me a believer long ago. LOL.
I think that this is much like the 10,000 hours business. Necessary-- but ultimately not sufficient. In fact, I'm not even so sure that it's necessary. We all know someone who never exercised, smoked/drank and lived to be a ripe old age without serious infirmity. Lucky is real, too.
If we are to control our own destinies, we have to switch our brains back on and come to our medical consultations with plenty of research done, able to use the relevant jargon.
Of course, as soon as you start to do SERIOUS research into anything medical-- and use the appropriate "jargon" (though I prefer "terminology" here because some of it is very definitely correct in a legitimate sense) then you begin to realize that you sound very much like a person who is at least possibly Munchausen.
So while I can say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it is NOT a good feeling to be in the 1% of patients with an unusual presentation of some unusual condition... and to get the feeling over and over and over again that you know more about current research and best practices than the physician(s) that you're dealing with.
If we are to control our own destinies, we have to switch our brains back on and come to our medical consultations with plenty of research done, able to use the relevant jargon.
Of course, as soon as you start to do SERIOUS research into anything medical-- and use the appropriate "jargon" (though I prefer "terminology" here because some of it is very definitely correct in a legitimate sense) then you begin to realize that you sound very much like a person who is at least possibly Munchausen.
So while I can say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it is NOT a good feeling to be in the 1% of patients with an unusual presentation of some unusual condition... and to get the feeling over and over and over again that you know more about current research and best practices than the physician(s) that you're dealing with.
BTDT, got the teeshirt. It's a scary thing.
When I said to a specialist, "I was wondering about this..." and got a blank look back, I began to worry.
My favorite line from the article, "The dangerous allure of the information we want to hear is something we need to be more vigilant about, in the medical consulting room and beyond."
I keep hearing this about my son, "There are some red flags but he doesn't qualify for x, y, or z." That's exactly what I want to hear, that nothing needs to be done, but something in my mommy gut says I should keep digging.
I generally find it interesting that the demographic with concerns and making alternative choices with regards to vaccines and hospital-based childbirth is most often highly educated and likely higher g. The connection with longer breastfeeding and higher IQ interests me as well. I've found in my small group of friends with higher LOG kids that most went well beyond the average 6-9months that other around us were doing... Personally my son was 3.5yrs old when he stopped.
Re: nursing, I can speak to the Canadian data, as I was working on a national donor milk strategy. So-called "extended" breastfeeding (>12 months) skews almost entirely toward university-educated mothers as recently as 2010. The formula culture is so aggressive that, I believe, mothers have to be vehemently pro-breastfeeding to be inoculated against its messaging. DS2 is still heavily breastfed. I can see him nursing to 3 or 4 quite happily and wouldn't stop him if that's the path he chooses.
Re: HK's knowing more than the diagnostician, BTDT. I recall a debate with DS' paediatrician about co-sleeping in which I proved why the assumptions behind the supporting literature she cited were logically invalid and didn't prove what she was attempting to prove. We've had a few of those discussions, but they only happen once per topic, if you catch my drift.
... if we taught basic health and nutrition in public schools we could probably correct some of this. But we don't. And then we send them to the cafeteria to have a giant plate of carbs for lunch, and if they are lucky, a tiny iceberg salad that they can slather in ranch dressing... We basically have left the entire population of the US to their own devices when it comes to basic health...
Ironically, we have left the population to the devices of public schools, which serve nutritionally poor meals, and decide to focus largely on s*x related topics as health, rather than having a comprehensive focus on nutrition and a balance of other habits of body and mind which may encourage lifelong health. (Not that parents haven't tried to change these things. Many also watched in horror as Jamie Oliver was dissuaded by LAUSD as he tried to improve the nutrition of the school menu.)
Originally Posted by epoh
... A more intelligent person is more likely to discover, entirely on their own, what proper nutrition and health is...
Some may learn this while quite young... in their family of origin, from library books, visiting farmer markets, growing a few fruits or veggies at home, and being a helper with grocery shopping where reading nutrition labels and choosing one new healthy food item to purchase on each visit and taste-test at home may prove a big adventure and yield life-long benefits.
I generally find it interesting that the demographic with concerns and making alternative choices with regards to vaccines and hospital-based childbirth is most often highly educated and likely higher g.
I'm interested: are you saying that you think that vaccines contribute to poor health?
The topic is regarding how people of higher intellect contribute to their own care by making more informed choices and thereby have improved outcomes.
The examples I gave are departures from the norm in medical practice and are informed choices that many make after considering the risk/benefit for their own personal medical histories/situations.
The general public doesn't even realize there is a choice most usually and goes along with the norm for their culture or whatever recommendation their health provider makes. It often takes a higher level of intellect to find information, make an evaluation of that information, advocate for a different path, and successfully navigate the pressures exerted by others to choose a more normative route.
My mother for example was pressured heavily by her cardiologist to get a pacemaker. She refused because she did not care for the permanency nor the risks. Instead she opted to travel to a world renowned center for an Ablation procedure by those who pioneered its use. It took much effort to arrange for this and the payment of it by her insurance. Those who choose pacemakers for their ailing hearts rather than ablation are no more "dumb" than those who immunize or choose hospital births if they have made an informed choice based on their own personal circumstances and desired outcomes.
Personalized medicine just like personalized education appear to offer the best potential outcomes to those able to access them. I tend to find any "one size fits all" approach in either domain to be inappropriate for all cirumstances. There is usually more than one option for most any dilemma and I carefully choose providers who allow me to participate in the decision making process as do many higher IQ individuals who operate in a place where there is such a choice.
The topic is regarding how people of higher intellect contribute to their own care by making more informed choices and thereby have improved outcomes.
The examples I gave are departures from the norm in medical practice and are informed choices that many make after considering the risk/benefit for their own personal medical histories/situations.
Yes, you're right. The thing here, though, is that there is a TON of misinformation about the risks of vaccines, and that people don't realize they're reading misinformation. IMO, there is a huge correlation (likely causative) between not vaccinating and people with a certain level of intelligence/education. ETA: meaning, people who know enough to see that some kind of issue has arisen, but not enough to be able to pick through it and assess it based on evidence. Obviously, there are parents whose kids CAN'T be vaccinated for medical reasons like allergies or having leukemia. I'm not talking about them.
I'm talking about people who are taken in by vaccine-autism myths (proven to be not there), vaccine-mercury myths (ethyl and methyl mercury are very different), vaccine-aluminium myths (more aluminium in breast milk), etc. etc. These people tend to be college educated:
Originally Posted by New England Journal of Medicine
...the unvaccinated children were more likely to be male, to be white, to belong to households with higher income, to have a married mother with a college education, and to live with four or more children.
As compared with parents of vaccinated children, significantly more parents of exempt children thought their children had a low susceptibility to the diseases (58% vs. 15%), that the severity of the diseases was low (51% vs. 18%), and that the efficacy and safety of the vaccines was low (54% vs. 17% for efficacy and 60% vs. 15% for safety). Moreover, parents of exempt children were more likely than parents of vaccinated children both to have providers who offered complementary or alternative health care and to obtain information from the Internet and groups opposed to aspects of immunization. The most frequent reason for nonvaccination, stated by 69% of the parents, was concern that the vaccine might cause harm.
I suspect that vaccine refusal for personal (rather than legitimate medical) reasons is an example of bad decision making in precisely the way that Bostonian's article noted. Plus, I also think there's an element of not recognizing one's own incompetence there.
Yes, hubris-- and I think that people with moderate LOG are probably the most susceptible to that particular blind spot. They seem to all believe that an afternoon at Google University makes them instant experts. Those of us with the best research skills are the MOST prone to it, honestly. I've done it myself.
Or they regard ANYONE who embraces the mantle of "expert" as being more or less equivalent, and at the same time, falling prey to confirmation bias and the bias of risk perception. I think that the curve for both phenomena is parabolic.
I see evidence of that in the blog post, truthfully. It's an anecdote being USED as data. Glad the outcome was good, but fundamental attribution error, much?
I do also think that there is a differential there in two ends of the "very bright people" spectrum. This is something that my DH and I have been discussing a lot recently-- that is, that some of the very bright people that we know view the world through a lens that doesn't seem...
well--
it doesn't seem empirically based, but belief/experientially- based.
Those people in particular are very prone to placing anecdote on an equal footing with data. In fact, I've not encountered too many of them that actually comprehend completely that there is a fundamental difference between the two things.
Then there is correlation fallacy, which MOST people are quite vulnerable to when considering anecdotes. What is a bit scary is that I've known quite a number of healthcare professionals in this category. They know what they know because it FEELS true to them, and to them-- that is the same thing as BEING true. I tend to avoid healthcare professionals like that, for whatever that is worth. Not that I think they are bad, precisely, but my worldview and theirs is fundamentally incompatible, and it's only going to lead to trouble.
Also, most of us-- and by 'us' I mean both the population at large and also us here-- simply aren't equipped to be "experts" at whatever we turn out attention toward. Only those with dangerous arrogance actually believe that they are.
I'm not cut out to be a theologian, artist, or historian. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I could be. I dabble, and it's fun. But I'm not very well-equipped to swim in the deep end there. KWIM?
... an anecdote being USED as data... prone to placing anecdote on an equal footing with data. In fact, I've not encountered too many of them that actually comprehend completely that there is a fundamental difference between the two things.
Agreed! Even on this forum, some prefer to collect personal stories not in addition to scientifically conducted, controlled research (as found in articles on the Davidson Database and elsewhere) but in place of research. Conflation of anecdotes and data = anecdata.
there is a TON of misinformation about the risks of vaccines...
However the presence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services attests that some families have suffered ill effects from vaccinations. (link- )
Families with a personal connection to someone affected may tend to be more wary than a family with no such personal anecdote.
I just want to drop into this two good reasons for people making choices that don't look "good" to other people, as a warning against smugness:
1) RCTs are a very blunt instrument. What you're interested in is the (Bayesian) probability of a given action having a given outcome for you, given everything you know about yourself - not the frequentist probability of it having that outcome for a randomly selected member of a group you're in.
2) The crude outcome usually measured is not the only aspect of the outcome of interest to you; you're interested in all aspects of the outcome, including your anticipated regret, which is tied up with your own situation and psychology and not well second-guessed by others. For example, given a treatment that reduces the chance of death by not much, but increases its uncertainty and, if it fails, has the prospect of reducing the quality of life in the last months, do you take it? The choice is so personal and contingent that probably few of us know what our own answer would be, never mind what someone else's should be.
Email: my username, followed by 2, at google's mail
However the presence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services attests that some families have suffered ill effects from vaccinations. (link- )
Families with a personal connection to someone affected may tend to more wary than a family with no such personal anecdote.
You have a point, but unfortunately, your point can also lead to fears about vaccinating if people don't have the correct information.
For example, that site says that roughly 2 billion doses of vaccines were administered in the US between 2006 and the present time. In that same period, ~4,000 petitions were filed at the VICP and ~1,400 were compensated.
Even if you use the larger number (petitions filed), the rate of serious injury was only 1 in 500,000 doses. If you use the claims that were compensated, it goes to about 1 in 1.4 million. Either way, vaccines are pretty safe. Especially when you compare to paralytic polio happening to 10% of people with that disease or neurlogical complications of measles (seizures, encephalomyelitis, or SSPE) in up to 2+% of cases. My sister ended up in a measles-induced coma before there was a vaccine. It happens, and it can be serious. As in, she's probably lucky to have survived it.
So I'll take the one-in-more-than-a-million risk. And so should anyone who's paying attention. But again, this is an area where people are susceptible to misinformation and where they often don't realize what's happening.
... I'll take the one-in-more-than-a-million risk...
I appreciate your PSA. The odds are in favor of most people getting vaccines. If I understand correctly, vaccines are required for workers in the fields of health care and medicine.
I just want to drop into this two good reasons for people making choices that don't look "good" to other people, as a warning against smugness:
1) RCTs are a very blunt instrument. What you're interested in is the (Bayesian) probability of a given action having a given outcome for you, given everything you know about yourself - not the frequentist probability of it having that outcome for a randomly selected member of a group you're in.
2) The crude outcome usually measured is not the only aspect of the outcome of interest to you; you're interested in all aspects of the outcome, including your anticipated regret, which is tied up with your own situation and psychology and not well second-guessed by others. For example, given a treatment that reduces the chance of death by not much, but increases its uncertainty and, if it fails, has the prospect of reducing the quality of life in the last months, do you take it? The choice is so personal and contingent that probably few of us know what our own answer would be, never mind what someone else's should be.
... I'll take the one-in-more-than-a-million risk...
I appreciate your PSA. The odds are in favor of most people getting vaccines. If I understand correctly, vaccines are required for workers in the fields of health care and medicine.
This is primarily to benefit those in their care who have allergies or compromised immune systems that preclude them from getting vaccinated themselves. These individuals can still be protected through "herd immunity."
One predictable outcome of significant pockets of society opting out of vaccination: outbreaks.
This is primarily to benefit those in their care who have allergies or compromised immune systems that preclude them from getting vaccinated themselves. These individuals can still be protected through "herd immunity."
One predictable outcome of significant pockets of society opting out of vaccination: outbreaks.
Yes, this is one of the things that's very damaging about the "personal choice" crowd and vaccines. Most choose to ignore the fact that their personal choices can make other people, like babies, cancer patients, and people with allergies, sick or very sick.
significant pockets of society opting out of vaccination: outbreaks.
This is my concern for undocumented immigrants.
Originally Posted by Val
...the "personal choice" crowd and vaccines.... their personal choices can make other people, like babies, cancer patients, and people with allergies, sick or very sick.
We also have things like DTaP as an alternative to DTP (a vaccine which resulted in some claims). There may be a fine balance between accommodating individual liberties and the needs of society as a whole. This is one reason we have both the practice of individual health care, and also the CDC and field of public health.
While washing hands does not prevent all diseases, it may be something we can all agree on.
Thank you for sharing; I was blissfully unaware. Has hand washing been correlated to IQ or other factors? If I sing/hum happy birthday twice to time my hand washing, must I pay royalties?
An example: according to the CA Dep't of Health, (see article in LA Times), whoooping cough/pertussis isn't a problem in Mexico, our largest source of undocumented immigrants (they do a good job of vaccinating there). So this one, at least, is a white-folks disease. This makes perfect sense, because upper-middle class college-educated US Caucasians are a major demographic questioning vaccination.
My information was easy to find and was from a reliable source. I'd be interested in knowing your source of information about undocumented residents.
Your point gets back to the demographic outlined above and other points about education: some people think they're finding reliable information, but they aren't, and they allow themselves to be fooled. I'm not claiming that every information source I've ever used is perfect, but I will say that my information about vaccination comes from reputable sources.
Originally Posted by indigo
We also have things like DTaP as an alternative to DTP (a vaccine which resulted in some claims).
No, we don't. DTP isn't an alternative to DTaP; it's an old vaccine for the same diseases (licensed 1949). It hasn't been used in the United States since 1991. The risk of neurological problems due to the old vaccine was 1:140,000 --- staggeringly low compared to what happens if you get tetanus (50,000 or more annual deaths worldwide before the vaccine was widespread) or diptheria (13,000-15,000 annual US deaths in the 1920s out of 100K-200K annual cases or 7.5-15% of cases ended in death. Most cases were children. The first vaccine was licensed in 1924).
Indigo, you're doing a great job of demonstrating how people argue/make decisions based on misinformation. This is bordering on being enough for a case study.
This is primarily to benefit those in their care who have allergies or compromised immune systems that preclude them from getting vaccinated themselves. These individuals can still be protected through "herd immunity."
One predictable outcome of significant pockets of society opting out of vaccination: outbreaks.
Yes, this is one of the things that's very damaging about the "personal choice" crowd and vaccines. Most choose to ignore the fact that their personal choices can make other people, like babies, cancer patients, and people with allergies, sick or very sick.
This is where I jump right to:
nodding and (in a horrified tone of voice) asking if they know what Prodromal Syndrome is like... OMG.... It's DEADLY. I had no idea until I researched this.
That way you're turning that impulse in a more productive direction, at least. Because the number ONE argument that I see people make against vaccinating (on philosophical grounds) is that they'll just quarantine themselves if they're sick. NO harm done, right? (er-- yeah, not so much, actually)
There are places within my own state where exemption rates are as high as 30%+ in some elementary schools. One of them is in a college town. {shudder} Yup. Measles outbreak just waiting to happen, pretty much.
...I'd be interested in knowing your source of information...
My eyes, ears, and heart provide the sources of concern for outbreaks among undocumented individuals. It is interpersonal. I did not need statistical data to have human empathy and concern. Local PSAs on TV may have been of some influence in raising my awareness.
Originally Posted by Val
Originally Posted by indigo
We also have things like DTaP as an alternative to DTP (a vaccine which resulted in some claims).
No, we don't. DTP isn't an alternative to DTaP; it's an old vaccine for the same diseases (licensed 1949). It hasn't been used in the United States since 1991. The risk of neurological problems due to the old vaccine was 1:140,000 ---
I did not mention DTP as an alternative for DTaP. Rather I stated DTaP is the alternative. You reversed it in your post. To expound upon my original sentence, in the event clarity may be needed: We now have an alternative between DTP and no vaccine: it is DTaP. We agree that DTP resulted in some claims. While you posted that DTP was not administered since 1991, I have different information indicating DTaP was administered only on request and DTP continued to be administered as the default.
Originally Posted by Val
you're doing a great job of demonstrating how people argue/make decisions based on misinformation. This is bordering on being enough for a case study.
I have acknowledged concern for people in their suffering... including vaccine-claimant families, undocumented immigrants upon being ill. There is no misinformation, decision, or argument in my posts. I have tried to convey an open-minded respect for individuals' varied experiences.
Originally Posted by Bostonian
articles
In summary, the OP's linked articles suggested higher IQ correlated with better health, possibly with a patient's independent personal research and advocacy having a causal relationship or being one determining factor. Meanwhile several posters have cited cases where they believe higher education may lead to more risk-taking... whether through hubris/arrogance, plethora of material of questionable value which people may encounter when researching, or relying more on personal anecdotes than peer-reviewed published research.
Health/medicine is a fascinating field with new scientific and behavioral studies and observations ongoing. What research indicates one year may be set aside at a later date. Except for hand washing... that was proven to provide health benefits over a century ago... wikipedia link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Let me just point out how terrifying it is to be here:
Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
So while I can say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it is NOT a good feeling to be in the 1% of patients with an unusual presentation of some unusual condition... and to get the feeling over and over and over again that you know more about current research and best practices than the physician(s) that you're dealing with.
BTDT, got the teeshirt. It's a scary thing.
While also known this to be true:
Originally Posted by HowlerKarma
Also, most of us-- and by 'us' I mean both the population at large and also us here-- simply aren't equipped to be "experts" at whatever we turn out attention toward. Only those with dangerous arrogance actually believe that they are.
1. Believe in the factual reality of what you yourself observe, but don't be too quick to assign causation, no matter what you THINK is happening-- truly eliminate all possibilities before making conclusions, or don't make them at all. A question mark isn't the end of the world, usually.
2. Don't believe anything that is single-sourced. If all roads lead back to ONE source, no matter how 'expert' then it is suspect in my mind. Search out dissent and pay attention to what it says.
Honestly, I don't know what happens to someone in my shoes who hasn't got decades of relevant professional experience in order to tease apart stuff that SEEMS like it should be legitimate from that which probably isn't. That bothers me a lot, in fact, and it's why I've put so much of myself into running a support group for nearly a decade. Having a place that you can ask any question-- and dissect it openly and even a little harshly-- is essential, I've found.
