Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + + + + + + + + + +
→Gardasil
::::In all seriousness, it is simply impossible to verify the safety of any drugs completely before phase IV clinical trials - meaning after the drugs has been marketed. Unless you test the drug on every single person on earth and obtain a reading on it, no drug is "safe". Patient care is always riddled with uncertainty - and if physicians waits until he's 100% all the time, they'd actually do more harm to patients by their inaction. That's when professional judgment and experience comes in.
::::In all seriousness, it is simply impossible to verify the safety of any drugs completely before phase IV clinical trials - meaning after the drugs has been marketed. Unless you test the drug on every single person on earth and obtain a reading on it, no drug is "safe". Patient care is always riddled with uncertainty - and if physicians waits until he's 100% all the time, they'd actually do more harm to patients by their inaction. That's when professional judgment and experience comes in.
::::And to bring this back to our original discussion about _this_ article - all drugs have adverse reactions. Stating that Gardasil "has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration" from a news article (as opposed to a medical journal) is just a cheap, baseless way of attacking vaccines. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
::::And to bring this back to our original discussion about _this_ article - all drugs have adverse reactions. Stating that Gardasil "has now been linked to a number of sudden deaths reported within days of its administration" from a news article (as opposed to a medical journal) is just a cheap, baseless way of attacking vaccines. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 15:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Would you give that drug to ''your'' daughter?
:::::I've read medical journals. They are not the platinum standard of scientific inquiry that you believe them to be. I have personally seen ''The New England Journal of Medicine'' duped big-time by someone—at [[Duke University]], no less—pulling a total dry-lab job. Imagine the mortification of the senior professor who signed off on that person's papers, and even put his name on them, when he found out ''years later'' what a puerile fraud his student had been, and had to issue retractions.
:::::And I have seen other things get into ''The New England Journal of Medicine'' from "investigators" who were all on drug-company payrolls. I cite [[RU-486]] as a prime example.
:::::And that's just one journal, a journal that I might add already had developed an unsavory reputation among teaching-hospital staffers, from the chairman level through the attending level and on down to the residents, for scholarship that was less than sterling. I cannot even repeat their toilet-humor pun on the journal's name—at least, not here I can't.
:::::Those who comment on, and especially those who make, public policy would be a lot more effective if they would just do a little bit of critical reading every now and then.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)