Just wanted to add a warning; the main site above belongs to a very brave mother who lost her daughter; if that will be too distressing you may not want to read it.

More impoortantly, that site belongs to a religious fanatic anti-vaxxer opposed to... well, science. Most of the links on site go to the Nazi conspiracy site "natural news" or to Christianity Today.

Glad to see the MSM finally wake up to Dr. Oz and his scams. And, no, there is NO proof anywhere on this "Hope for Holly" site that he is being targeted for being skeptical of pesticides.

Shakti,
I think you haven't read the site properly? To clarify the events..

1. Holly had already had her first MMR vaccine, so we can assume initially her Mom was pro vaccine.

2. After being given the second MMR vaccine at the age of 5, Holly developed a table Vaccine Injury.

If you are not familiar with the term, you can look it up at the U.S department of Health and Human Services ( HRSA)

3. The U.S. government has developed 'table injuries " for events that they are willing to concede were caused as a result of an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The u.S. government is in sole charge of vaccine injury compensation as by law vaccine manufacturers are protected and cannot be sued.

By the way, the time limits are very precise; for example encephalopathy ( brain inflammation) is only a table injury if it occurs between 5-15 days after the MMR. ..(A child who reacts on day 4 is out of luck.)

4. Holly died after developing encephalopathy 7 days after her second MMR, meeting the very strict criteria for a table vaccine injury.

5. The federal government compensated her family for the death.

( I don't think the U.S. federal government who compensated her really would best be described as an anti vaccine fanatic, do you?)

6.Her mother worked to pass a law (Hollys Law) bill PL 2003 c257 in New Jersey so doctors have to inform parents that they have the option to get MMR titres instead of automatically re vaccinating.


As a general rule, parents whose children die at very young ages often grieve for many years.
Re "religious fanaticism" in all the links; I don't know, I have not read them all. She does seem to be a Christian, and uses several quotes from the Bible.

Is your main issue with her the fact that she wants to warn people about the potential dangers of a vaccine that killed her child, or is there something else on her site that upsets you?

As it is ,the article on Dr Oz still represents a different point of view.

The focus of this thread is Dr. Oz.

Let's focus like a laser on that specific topic and not be sidetracked off topic.

OZ seems to be something of a quack selling discredited nonsense despite his medical degree. At least that was the focus of his appearance before Congress and those that now want him gone from Columbia.

Peer reviewed scientific studies published in credible journals might be one way of establishing what is meaningful scientific evidence as opposed to conjecture and/or conspiracy theories.

Dr. Oz apparently has something like a "cult following," which are willing to believe whatever he says rather than engage in due diligence to establish the scientifically established facts.

Oz appears to likewise rely heavily upon his charisma and celebrity status rather than hard facts firmly established by scientific research, which demonstrate objectively the efficacy of his proposed cures or health schemes.

When health is the focus a medical doctor must rely upon facts not unproven theories that may jeopardize the health of people.

[www.vox.com]

(Small excerpt)

Quote

Medical students and residents frustrated with bogus advice from doctors on TV have, for more than a year, been asking the American Medical Association to clamp down and "defend the integrity of the profession."

Now the AMA is finally taking a stand on quack MDs who spread pseudoscience in the media.

"This is a turning point where the AMA is willing to go out in public and actively defend the profession," Benjamin Mazer, a medical student at the University of Rochester who was involved in crafting the resolution, said. "This is one of the most proactive steps that the AMA has taken [on mass media issues]."

Doctors in OZ blog

[www.doctorsinoz.com]

Quote

I couldn’t be more proud of my fellow medical students. Medical students remain in many way the conscience of medicine. All resolutions are open to amendment and public discussion throughout this process. We will continue to revise our policy request and engage in this important discussion. We’ll share updates on this blog.

Please continue sending your stories and perspectives. I’ll be using the experiences shared with Doctors In Oz in my official testimony for this and other policy resolutions.


WHEREAS, Patients receive medical information from a variety of sources other than their physician, including media outlets such as news programs and talk shows which feature physicians as experts; and

WHEREAS, The medical information disseminated in the media reaches millions of Americans, affects public health, and changes health behaviors;1-6 and

WHEREAS, The talk shows The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors draw 2.9 million and 2.3 million viewers per day, respectively;7 and

WHEREAS, a study published in the BMJ found that for 80 randomly selected recommendations made in The Dr Oz Show in 2013, only 46% were supported by evidence, 15% were contradicted by evidence, and evidence was not found for 39%; similarly, 80 randomly selected recommendations made in The Doctors in 2013, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%;7 and

WHEREAS, it has been shown that only 0.4% of recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors were accompanied by disclosure of potential conflicts of interest;7 and

WHEREAS, A physician is bound by the profession’s code of ethics to “participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health”, a responsibility which encompasses the provision of accurate and relevant information;8 and

WHEREAS, A board-certified physician releasing inaccurate medical information is in violation of professional ethics, including but not limited to the oath to do no harm;8 and

WHEREAS, The AMA finds incompetence, corruption, or dishonest or unethical conduct by medical professionals “reprehensible” and has created a system by which individuals can report misconduct to the AMA and other medical societies for disciplinary measures;9 and

WHEREAS, In the case of Andrew Wakefield’s inaccurate and unscientific study linking vaccines with autism, the medical community responded by publicly retracting the relevant published article and banned Wakefield from further practice, setting a public precedent for self-policing within the medical community;10,11 and

WHEREAS, The AMA has policy which supports the provision of accurate medical information and authentication of medical credentials (E-5.04, H-445.997), active physician participation in the prevention of medical misinformation (H-225.994), proactive responses to misleading media releases (H-445.995), standards of conduct for social media (E-9.124), general public health, and the protection of public confidence in the medical profession; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs report on the professional and ethical obligations for physicians in the media, including guidelines for the endorsement and dissemination of general medical information and advice via television, radio, internet, print media, or other forms of mass audio or video communication; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA release a statement affirming the professional and ethical obligation of physicians in the media to provide quality medical advice supported by evidence-based principles and transparent to any conflicts of interest, while denouncing the dissemination of dubious or inappropriate medical information through the public media including television, radio, internet, and print media; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA study existing and potential disciplinary pathways for physicians who violate ethical responsibilities through their communication on a media platform.



April 19, 2015 | Benjamin Mazer .

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2015 07:34PM by corboy.

I think Dr Wakefield is also one of the doctors who has been/is a focus of this thread as one of "Oprahs Celebrity Doctors" which is the title of this thread?

If discussion about Dr Wakefield is appropriate for this thread,( if not, please let me know) then this video of Congressman Posey addressing the house floor regarding the CDC whistleblower Senior CDC scientist Dr William Thompson, and the statements he has made about CDC research would appear to be germane, particularly as the study was designed to address issues raised in the Wakefield study.
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2015 02:13PM by yasmin.

Yes, thanks for bringing up Dr. Wakefield, he has been on Oprah before and is also part of the "anti-vaxxer" scam.

[www.cnn.com]

[www.theguardian.com]

[rationalwiki.org]

[briandeer.com]

Yes.

Wakefield has certainly been vilified for his belief that the MMR vaccine could be linked to autism.
This makes the new statement by Rep Posey yesterday particularly germane.

Interesting that Dr Thompson, the senior research scientist at the CDC ( Center for Disease Control) now states that his study data showed that African American boys have a huge statistical risk of developing autism after the MMR vaccine.
In his words:


"the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge"

Of course, apparently the CDC did not want that information included in the study, so the study design was changed and the controversial data was placed in a large garbage can.

Who knew that a trash can for inconvenient data is part of the scientific method?

Well apparently it is not, since Dr Thompson went on to say that he "assumed it was illegal" and "kept hard copies" which he has made available to Dr Posey and can be supplied to other members of Congress.

The link above shows Rep Posey quoting from Dr Thompsons statement, and anyone who is interested can watch exactly what Dr Thompson said in detail.

Were either Dr. Thompson or Rep Posey on Oprah as "celebrity doctors"? I'm not sure how that is relevant to the topic of the thread otherwise. It really seems like you are here to troll as an "anti-vaxxer" rather than to discuss Oprah's Celebrity Doctors.

Also, Snopes has already blown this whole story apart last year...

[www.snopes.com]

What got lost in the brouhaha over Dr. Thompson's "confession," allegations about a "cover-up" at the CDC, and threats of whistleblower lawsuits was what should have been the main point: Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not.

On 27 August 2014, Dr. Hooker's article published in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration that concluded "African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis" was removed from public domain due to issues of conflict of interest and the questionable validity of its methods:

The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings.


The CDC issued a statement regarding the data in question, with instructions for accessing the study at the center of the controversy. As the CDC noted, the authors of that study suggested that the most likely explanation for the moderate correlation between autism and vaccination in young children was the existence of immunization requirements for autistic children enrolled in special education preschool programs:

Access to the information on the birth certificates allowed researchers to assess more complete information on race as well as other important characteristics, including possible risk factors for autism such as the child’s birth weight, mother’s age, and education. This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates.

The study looked at different age groups: children vaccinated by 18 months, 24 months, and 36 months. The findings revealed that vaccination between 24 and 36 months was slightly more common among children with autism, and that association was strongest among children 3-5 years of age. The authors reported this finding was most likely a result of immunization requirements for preschool special education program attendance in children with autism.


For a thorough analysis of the flaws and misinformation associated with the current CDC autism "cover-up" conspiracy theory, we recommend the posts on the subject at ScienceBlogs, which note of the claim at the heart of this matter (i.e, allegedly suppressed proof of a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys after MMR vaccination) that:

Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry, and records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Basically, no significant associations were found between the age cutoffs examined and the risk of autism. I note that, even in the "reanalysis" by Brian Hooker, there still isn't any such correlation for children who are not African American boys

So is Hooker’s result valid? Was there really a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in African-American males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset? Hooker [performed] multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives. As we say, if you slice and dice the evidence more and more finely, eventually you will find apparent correlations that might or might not be real. In this case, I doubt Hooker's correlation is real.

There's no biologically plausible reason why there would be an effect observed in African-Americans but no other race and, more specifically than that, in African-American males. In the discussion, Hooker does a bunch of handwaving about lower vitamin D levels and the like in African American boys, but there really isn't a biologically plausible mechanism to account for his observation, suggesting that it's probably spurious. There are multiple other studies, many much larger than this one, that failed to find a correlation between MMR and autism.

What [Hooker] has done, apparently, is found grist for a perfect conspiracy theory to demonize the CDC, play the race card in a truly despicable fashion, and cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the CDC vaccination program, knowing that most of the white antivaccine activists who support [him] hate the CDC so much that they won't notice that even Hooker's reanalysis doesn’t support their belief that vaccines caused the autism in their children.

Shakti;
I am not sure why Dr Hooker is relevant to the discussion at all?
I am not referencing him, and don't think he is one of Oprahs celebrity doctors, either?

The discussion is about what an actual Senior CDC research scientist says in his own words.

In Dr Thompsons own words, ( to repeat, Dr Thompson is a senior research scientist at the CDC) as quoted by Rep Posey;

"the controlled study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield/Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism like health outcome."

Hence, this all has relevance to the Wakefield study, since it is actually mentioned, and the new study was designed as a response to it.

When the author of the pediatrics study feels the need to hire a whistleblower lawyer, provide information to a member of Congress, and make a statement that they "intentionally withheld controversial findings" and felt that with regard to the destruction of the data he "assumed it was illegal" then imo, there is no real need to discuss some other doctor who is neither the whistleblower nor one of Oprahs celebrity doctors.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that it is Dr Thompson who is being quoted, and who provided the statement.

And the information he provides seems to support a connection betwween MMR vaccination and the development of autism in African American boys.