For Those Asking "What Does The Surgeon General Do Anyway?" or "He's just a spokesperson"...

[berni_mccoy]

I would like to point out something that radically changed the health in this country:

On cigarrette packages:

"SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy."

"SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health."

"SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight."

"SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide."

On smokeless tobacco:

"WARNING: This product may cause mouth cancer."

"WARNING: This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss."

"WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes."

and so on...

Now, do you think someone who is in the pocket of big pharma should be SG?

[Thrill]

1. As usual. Just your normal Fake Outrage

[berni_mccoy]

4. As usual, just more ignorance.

[mucifer]

2. Don't forget what C Evertt Coop did for AIDS education under Reagan.

It was pretty amazing.

[rvablue]

16. Yes....and I could be wrong, but I think Koop defied the administration and came out on AIDS first.

[mucifer]

18. exactly and that's what you want in a surg gen, an activist spirit!

not a media hack.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Coop wasn't an activist till he was surgeon general.

Let's not get carried away with this worship of SG Coop. There's a whole segment of the population dying of Aids as we speak. Aids has in no way been eradicated, it just relocated from the Gay Community to the Black Community. :shrug:

[rvablue]

29. So now we have to go tepid on Koops valiant efforts because he didn't

eradicate AIDS?

He stood up to Reagan and got the media spotlight shining on the crisis a lot sooner than "head stuck in the sand" Reagan.

Geesh!

[FrenchieCat]

38. No. I was just saying that he wasn't an activist until he became a SG.

To those saying that we need an activist in the SG seat and using Coop as an example, I'm just saying that Coop wasn't an activist until he got the job of SG. Further, I'm saying that he was great at what he did do for AIDS, but he wasn't the end all.

It would be like comparing Obama to a previous President in the current.
Obama isn't President yet, so it would be a hard comparison....

That is all.

[rvablue]

67. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Gupta to go in front of Congress

in order to bring attention to fact that so many young AA women are dying from the disease. :cry:

I hope it is sooner than later.

[dsc]

32. that is just plain not true

first many young gays are still getting AIDS and secondly many of the blacks getting AIDS are actually gay or at least bi.

[FrenchieCat]

35. The worse hit in the Black Community are Black Women.......

who are hetero. The leading cause of death among Black women aged 25-34 is AIDS.

AIDS is also the 3rd leading cause of death among Black women ages 35-44, and the 4th leading cause of death for black women aged 45–54 years.

High-risk heterosexual contact was the source of 80% of these newly diagnosed infections.

Of the 126,964 women living with HIV/AIDS, 64% were black, 19% were white, 15% were Hispanic, 1% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and less than 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native.

The rate of AIDS diagnosis for black women (45.5/100,000 women) was approximately 23 times the rate for white women (2.0/100,000) and 4 times the rate for Hispanic women (11.2/100,000) <3>.




.

Most women are infected with HIV through high-risk heterosexual contact <3>. Black and Hispanic women account for 81% of the women living with HIV/AIDS in 2005 who acquired HIV through high-risk heterosexual contact <3>. Lack of HIV knowledge, lower perception of risk, drug or alcohol use, and different interpretations of safer sex may contribute to this disproportion <11>. Relationship dynamics also play a role. For example, some women may not insist on condom use because they fear that their partner will physically abuse them or leave them <12>. Such sexual inequality is a major issue in relationships between young women and older men. In a CDC study of urban high schools, more than one third of black and Hispanic women had their first sexual encounter with a male who was older (3 or more years) <13>. These young women, compared with peers whose partners had been approximately their own age, had been younger at first sexual intercourse, less likely to have used a condom during first and most recently reported intercourse, or less likely to have used condoms consistently.

CDC estimates that 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006 <26>. Populations of minority races/ethnicities are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. To further reduce the incidence of HIV infection, CDC announced a new initiative, Advancing HIV Prevention, in 2003. This initiative comprises 4 strategies: making HIV testing a routine part of medical care, implementing new models for diagnosing HIV infections outside medical settings, preventing new infections by working with HIV-infected persons and their partners, and further decreasing perinatal HIV transmission.

In the United States, women, particularly women of color, are at risk for HIV infection. CDC, through the Department of Health and Human Services Minority AIDS Initiative, explores ways to reduce disparities in communities made up of persons of minority races/ethnicities who are at high risk for HIV infection. CDC is also conducting demonstration projects in which women’s social networks are used to reach high-risk persons in communities of color; CDC is also conducting outreach and testing for partners of HIV-infected men. Additionally, CDC recognizes the importance of further incorporating culture- and gender-relevant material into current interventions <27>.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/women.htm

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Bet you a dollar you can't find one person who quit BECAUSE of these warnings

:P

[berni_mccoy]

5. LOL. But I *can* find people who didn't smoke because of it.

[mucifer]

6. Bet you a dollar Coop saved many lives with his AIDS education campaign which

he initiated.

[Deja Q]

7. So now the packet will say "SURGERON GENERAL'S WARNING: USE NICODERM(tm)"?

[Arctic Dave]

8. LOL!!!!

[ellacott]

11. Funny!!!!!

[berni_mccoy]

12. DUzy!

[uponit7771]

55. +1

[leftstreet]

107. ROFL!

:rofl:

[ellacott]

9. What does having blackbox warnings on cigarettes have to do with Pharma

and being in their pocket?

Do you think he would even accept the job if he didn't agree to represent the President's position and not those of "big pharma"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Perhaps he thinks Gupta will some how remove contraindications from medications.

Or, more likely, given his views on vaccines and autism, it's just an ill-defined conspiracy theory about "big pharma" and the tri-lateral commission, or something.

[ellacott]

19. Oh, ok

We've fallen in the rabbit hole.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. "Now, do you think someone who is in the pocket of big pharma should be SG?"

You're hoping for a surgeon general that puts labels on vaccines reading "WARNING: This product may cause autism?"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2935702

[grantcart]

14. ouch that will leave a vaccine mark

[berni_mccoy]

15. No, I'm hoping for a competent individual who does not make arguments based on emotion, and who is

free of influence from large corporations.

That's what should be expected of a Surgeon General who will influence the health of the nation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. You're an anti-vaccer.

The fact that you don't like Gupta is a plus.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Where do you get the idea I'm an anti-vaccer? My children are fully vaccinated.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Your mercury causes autism posts.

[berni_mccoy]

26. I don't think I have any of those. My posts question: "Why Are We Using Mercury In Vaccines?"

And I don't think I've made many of those.

[Occam Bandage]

30. You were just idly wondering?

And do not believe there is any evidence or reason to believe that the vaccine causes autism? Well, that's a bit eccentric, then, but fair.

Of course, if you actually do believe in the fabled vaccine-autism link, then you have absolutely no cred whatsoever when it comes to talking about public health issues.

[berni_mccoy]

40. I do not know what causes autism. Neither does anyone else. But I know mercury in your bloodstream

is bad. And there are other ways to preserve vaccines.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. We know that mercury does not cause autism.

We know that people who say otherwise are pseudoscientific anti-vaccers.

[Occam Bandage]

48. True. Are you willing to admit that there is absolutely zero link between vaccines and autism?

[berni_mccoy]

61. No, because we don't know what causes autism. Maybe there is maybe there isn't. But no one knows.

But we do know mercury is not a good thing to inject in your bloodstream.

And if you and the other asshat would look to who I was responding to which was not the OP in that thread, THEY were saying vaccines were bad. I was saying, it's not the vaccines that are bad, it's what's in them as a preservative (MERCURY).

[Occam Bandage]

63. Every study done--by universities, by the government, by whoever--has disproven such a link.

We don't know what causes autism. But we can certainly rule things out by testing them and performing studies. That's what science is--not proving things so much as it is disproving them until only one option is left.

Failure to accept repeated peer-reviewed scientific studies is a game played only by the ignorant and by conspiracy nuts. You may not actually be an anti-vaccine tinfoiler, but there are precious few excuses for stubbornly holding on to long-discredited theories.

[berni_mccoy]

66. No-one has proven or disproven any cause of autism.

[Occam Bandage]

71. That's either horrendously misleading or an outright lie.

If you say that to mean, "absolute proof or disproof of anything in demographic studies is impossible; the best you do is find a repeated lack of any statistical correlation within (say) a 95% confidence interval, but numerous studies have indeed found no correlation whatsoever, each at 95% or 99% confidence," then that is very misleading, because it suggests that the "jury is still out," as it were, on a vaccine-autism link. A brief search turns up links to eight different peer-reviewed studies in the past decade, all of which found no correlation whatsoever between vaccination and autism with at least 95% confidence. The odds of all eight studies being wrong would be (by my rough reckoning), 0.00000000391%. While it is technically correct that it is "not disproven," that's pretty darn close.

If you say that to mean, "the jury is out, who knows, it might very well be the case that vaccines cause autism," you are lying or misinformed.

[berni_mccoy]

78. Absence of connection does not mean proof negative. For example, here's one study you are referring

to:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/08/science/sci-autism8

"Steve M. Edelson, an experimental psychologist who is director of the Autism Research Institute, a nonprofit organization in San Diego, said the study, along with evidence from previous research, argued against thimerosal as the major culprit in autism.

But he added that thimerosal may still play some role. Edelson said such large-scale analysis could overlook smaller groups of children, who for whatever reason have a particular vulnerability to mercury."

I'm taking the position of "we don't know, means, we don't know" and that is the simplest truth.

And as always, my position is, mercury isn't good to inject in children's blood, so why are we using it in vaccines?

[Occam Bandage]

84. That isn't the study saying that. That is an "experimental psychologist"

trying to find some excuse allowing him to support his crackpot theories.

"Well, there might be some statistically insignificant number of children who somehow are given autism by vaccines" is not only mildly preposterous, it would not even remotely uphold the vaccine-autism link even if true, since the theory requires the number of such children to be statistically insignificant.

We do not know what causes autism. We know that there is no statistical correlation between vaccines and autism, and therefore know that the apparent statistically-significant increased incidence of autism is not caused by vaccines. "We don't know means we don't know" is nothing but dismissal of evidence.

As for your talk about "mercury isn't good," etc., etc: prove a link between thimerosal and any adverse long-term effects. "Well, no studies can find anything, but it's probably bad" is not grounds to change public policy.

[berni_mccoy]

89. He's the Director of Autism Research. Are you saying he's wrong? He agrees with the study.

And says we need more research to uncover the true cause of autism. Thimerosal *may* be involved in some way.

And I don't need to prove a thing to you. You've been arguing that I concluded mercury is the cause of autism and I've clearly shown that is not true.

You've only proven your own stupidity.

[Occam Bandage]

94. The guy has a Ph.D. in *psychology.* He's not an MD. He wasn't involved with the study at all.

It's nice that he mostly agrees with the study, and it's nice that he's head of a little group of like-minded people somewhere, but his opinion is useless. You can keep saying "thimerosal might be involved," but every single study has said otherwise.

Every.

Single.

Study.

There is no link between thimoseral and autism, in any age, race, gender, nationality, income, or any other level. You can look at 400,000 kids with thimerosal vaccines, and 100,000 kids without, and you'll find absolutely no difference in the incidence of autism between the two. How do I know that? Because I read the study. How can you say "thimerosal might be involved" if there is absolutely no difference in the incidence of autism between children who areexposed to it and children who are not?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1473

As for the "mercury is the cause of autism" contention? Given that you're still defending a crackpot pseudoscientific theory (even in a diminished, almost-pathetic manner), yeah, you haven't proven much of anything along there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. The Autism Research Institute is a disreputable quack organization.

Edelson's a quack.

[berni_mccoy]

103. Do you and Occam both work for the makers of Thimerosal? or is one of you Sanjay himself?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Nope.

Do you feel that cervical cancer is God's cure for women of loose moral values?

Because that's what the anti-gardasil movement boils down to.

[ananda]

20. Is it OK to like Sanjay Gupta?

I think he's so cute and he always
talks a lot of sense.

[berni_mccoy]

23. You are free to like him. I am free to dislike him. My beef with him stems from his dishonesty

in presenting his case on CNN against the Sicko film. He felt free to use partisans as "experts" and he tried to hide that fact. He also felt free to misstate facts from the film and then claim these were honest "transcripted" errors. I'm sorry, if your hanging your case on inaccuracies of someone's film, you are going to be damn well be accurate in yours. These were not mistakes, but partisan propaganda.

[Political Tiger]

24. Gupta is homophobic!

Not really, but someone is going to make that claim eventually so I thought I'd get a head start on them.....
}(

[pinto]

25. How is Dr. Gupta "in the pocket of Big Pharma" ?

Is it because one his his roles is correspondent for CNN television? Is he on the payroll of a pharmaceutical company? What does the accusation mean?

[Occam Bandage]

31. It's a meaningless claim.

"Tool of big business," "wall street shill," and "in the pocket of big pharma" are all accusations that are merrily bandied about whenever there is no substantial reason to oppose a particular nominee, and accepted unquestioningly by DUers.

The reason some people here don't like him? Because he once ran a segment in which he outlined some errors in Michael Moore's movie Sicko, and made some factual errors of his own while doing so. Shock, horror, outrage, etc. Clearly he's an avowed political enemy of all that is good and just.

[pinto]

34. As far as his TV persona work, he's done some good stuff.

In 2004, Gupta traveled to the international AIDS conference in Bangkok, Thailand, where he reported on the pandemic for CNN. In December 2004, he was sent to Sri Lanka to cover the disaster and aftermath of the tsunami that took more than 155,000 lives in South Asia. That coverage contributed to the awarding of an Alfred I. duPont Award to CNN.

The following year, Gupta contributed to CNN's Peabody Award-winning coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. In addition to his other reporting in New Orleans, Gupta broke the news that official reports that New Orleans' Charity Hospital had been completely evacuated were incorrect, revealing that more than 200 patients remained there for five days after the hurricane made landfall.

Gupta’s passion for inspiring Americans to lead healthier, more active lives also led him to launch "New You Resolution" and later “Fit Nation,” CNN’s multi-platform grassroots initiatives against obesity. Two nationwide “Fit Nation” tours have culminated in special long-form programs that revealed the hazards of obesity in children, “Fat Chance,” and the challenges in eating healthy in a culture and regulatory environment that makes processed food so prevalent in the American diet, “Danger: Poisoned Food.”

Other documentaries have included "Quake Zone," "Killer Flu," "Sleep," “Blood Spilled” and “Rescuing Youssif” which, respectively, addressed concerns about surviving the Pakistani earthquake, avian flu, the dangers of a lack of sleep, the challenges faced by wounded Iraqi veterans and the emotional and physical journey of the recovery of a young Iraqi boy, respectively.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html

[berni_mccoy]

36. His promotion of Gardasil as a means to prevent cervical cancer in young girls. Merck is a sponsor

of his show AccentHealth.

No trials of guardasil showed improvement of cervical cancer risk in young adolescent girls.

[Occam Bandage]

37. What, exactly, is wrong with promoting Gardasil? It's an effective preventative.

Oh, right, it's a vaccine, and therefore is The Evil.

(On edit: So, you're now claiming it's not effective? Dude, they had to stop the 12,000-woman study partway through because it would have been unethical to continue administering placebos to half the women instead of the actual drug. And it was tested on girls as young as eleven. It's effective.)

[berni_mccoy]

39. Gardasil is effective at preventing HPV which is the cause of 70% of cervical cancer cases

in ADULT WOMEN. Not girls.

And no, I'm not anti-vaccine.

Note: corrected as pointed out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. HPV, not herpes.

Again with the pseudoscience.

"And no, I'm not anti-vaccine."

Well you post the standard anti-vaccer bullshit about mercury causing autism.

Now you're posting the standard anti-vaccer bullshit about gardasil.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[berni_mccoy]

43. Please show me where I post about mercury causing autism. I'd appreciate it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. I already did.

(HELLO!)

[berni_mccoy]

49. You don't know a post from your ass. I said vaccines contain mercury. That's it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. In the context of vaccines causing autism.

Then you go on the mercury kick in this very thread.

[berni_mccoy]

53. Now you show just how stupid you are. I was pointing out there that the issue isn't what it does

But that there is MERCURY IN IT.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. On the basis that mercury in vaccines causes autism.

It's right there for everybody to read.

Denying it isn't doing you any favors.

You can't dig yourself out of a hole.

[berni_mccoy]

58. No, on the basis that your injecting mercury into your child's bloodstream. HELLO!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. And you've argued that's what causes autism.

Which is why you're an anti-vaccer.

[berni_mccoy]

62. No I haven't. Your a complete and utter moron.

[Occam Bandage]

46. I am disappointed that you

not only brought up the HPV business before I did, you even did the walking duck bit before I did. How disappointing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Obviously we're sockpuppets who got read from the same big pharma boilerplate.

[Occam Bandage]

44. First, it's HPV, not herpes. You obviously don't know jack shit about either.

Secondly, a study published in Lancet found it had 99.1-100% effectiveness in preventing HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection in girls 10 to 15 years of age.

Thirdly, if it walks like an anti-vaccer and talks like an anti-vaccer...

[berni_mccoy]

50. Sorry, my bad. That doesn't counter the point that Gupta isn't taking money from Merk

And it doesn't make me an "anti-vaccer".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Have you got any evidence Gupta's taken money from Merck?

[berni_mccoy]

54. Yes, if you can comprehend instead of spout, you'll realize from reading above

that his show AccentHealth is sponsored by Merk.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. His show is also sponsored by Head-on, GEICO, and those Amish electric heaters.

That doesn't mean he's taking money from the Amish.

[berni_mccoy]

65. And Gupta has promoted Head-on and GEICO as great remedies for health issues.

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Gardasil actual does save lives.

Any real doctor would say as much.

I don't want some loony anti-vaccer for Surgeon General.

[berni_mccoy]

101. I never said it didn't.

[Occam Bandage]

60. You have one frame of interpretation. Let me present another.

You believe that, since Dr. Gupta accepts advertising from Merck and since he promotes a drug produced by Merck, that there is a corrupt link between the two.

I will present an alternative: Merck buys advertising on Dr. Gupta's show, because it feels that people who are interested in a show about medicine are more likely to be receptive to advertisements for medicines. Dr. Gupta accepts the advertisements, because he runs a TV show and that is what TV shows do, and he owes them nothing beyond the cash for the ad time. After all, if Merck hadn't bought it, Ford or Kellogg or someone else would have. On an entirely unrelated note, Dr. Gupta recommends Gardasil because it is an effective preventative for the fifth-leading cause of cancer deaths in women. He would do the same if it were produced by GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer or whoever.

[berni_mccoy]

64. You don't know what I believe. I'll tell you. A drug company is a major sponsor of the show.

Said drug company would pull out its sponsorship if, say a co-host, would not promote it's drug or worse, discuss the real facts about it.

Gupta should not be talking about the greatness of drugs from sponsors if he doesn't want to appear that there is a conflict of interest.

[Occam Bandage]

68. That is...er...entirely covered by what I wrote. But hey, let's pretend it wasn't.

So your case is this:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a bad choice for Surgeon General, because he says that a drug that has been repeatedly found extraordinarily safe and absolutely effective is both safe and effective. This is bad, because the television station that employs him also accepts advertising from the company that manufactures this drug, and charges the standard rate. Therefore, it is possible that if the drug were actually dangerous and ineffective--and if Dr. Sanjay Gupta was the only person who knew of this, since such information tends to spread rapidly and result in lawsuits and media sensationalism once it hits the public--then Dr. Sanjay Gupta might hide that information because revealing it might possibly result in the aforementioned drug company pulling its advertisements (in what would become a huge PR disaster) causing a potential financial loss for his employer, if that employer is unable to find another company to fill the slots without charging a reduced rate.

That is a really, really weak case, I have to say. I understand why you say "he's in the pocket of Big Pharma" instead; that actually sounds like it might be meaningful.

[berni_mccoy]

69. You completely missed the point (as you have in this entire thread).

If Dr. Gupta doesn't want to appear under the influence of big pharma, he should not be promoting drugs of sponsors of his show.

He is incapable of showing bias at this point because he *has* shown bias.

[Occam Bandage]

72. So it's biased to say

that the only effective vaccination against the world's fifth-leading cause of cancer deaths in women (and which is over twice as safe as the average vaccine) is both safe and effective? There's no apparent conflict of interest if he only sticks to the evidence base, and that's exactly what he's doing. There's no reason why he should refuse to accept advertisements, and no reason why he should not talk about the best treatments available. Your paranoia is not a valid reason for him to withhold information that would improve the public-health.

Frankly, the fact that your best argument against Dr. Gupta is that he promotes a drug that has been repeatedly found extraordinarily safe and effective is not exactly a mark against him.

[berni_mccoy]

81. One: that's not what he said. He made claims about the vaccine's effectiveness on young girls

which was never studied.

And two, that's no my only beef with the guy. But since you scan my posts so thoroughly, you should know that.

[Occam Bandage]

87. It was indeed studied. The Lancet study covered girls 10 through 15 years of age as well as adults.

Where does this "it was never studied" business come from?

[berni_mccoy]

90. Not when Gupta promoted it. It wasn't even FDA approved when he made his claims about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. Sanjay Gupta has never promoted a vaccine that was not yet approved by the FDA.

You're grasping at straws.

[berni_mccoy]

100. WRONG: Gardasil was approved on June 8, 2006

Gupta promoted it on October 6, 2005.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A few years ago, Rose Dennis, a 53-year-old healthy woman, went in for a routine pap smear, one of the most common procedures done in the world. As she felt fine, she really thought nothing of it until she got a life-altering call from her doctor. She had cervical cancer.

ROSE DENNIS, CERVICAL CANCER SURVIVOR: During that time, it was -- I don't want to really remember it. It was just horrible.

GUPTA: Dennis is one of thousands of women in this country who suffers from cervical cancer, which is actually caused by a virus called human papillomavirus, or HPV. It is often transmitted sexually.

Now, this cancer is curable if treated early. But now there may be a way to prevent the disease from ever occurring in the first place: a vaccine. It wasn't easy to develop such a vaccine, as there are more than 70 different types of HPV. But researchers honed in on two of them, numbers 16 and 18, because those are the most dangerous types.

DR. KEVIN AULT, EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: In this particular vaccine, there are four types of human papillomavirus that are covered. They're probably the four most common types. Sixteen and 18 are responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer.

GUPTA: Best news of all, the vaccine prevented 100 percent of those two strains.

AULT: We don't think of most vaccines as being 100 percent effective, so I think that's good news overall. And certainly a pleasant surprise for those of us who have been doing this research for a number of years.

GUPTA: The vaccine is called Gardasil and Merck and Company, Inc., the manufacturer, says it plans to apply for a license before the end of the year. If approved, this vaccine may become extremely common, recommended to all women in their teenage years before they become sexually active.

Rose Dennis had no such option. She had to endure a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiation to become cancer free. For her and possibly thousands of others, a vaccine would make all the difference.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.

Here's the facts: no studies at the time showed the drug was 100% effective at preventing the two strains. And it doesn't prevent 70% of the cases.

But that is the way he portrayed it before any studies had been completed or before it was approved by the FDA. That wasn't the only instance, but since I've proven how wrong you are, you should do the digging on your own. You've already done enough digging tonight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. That's a news article about their up comiong vaccine.

Gupta never endorse anybody take the vaccine until after it was approved by the FDA.

[berni_mccoy]

117. In which Gupta knowingly made false claims about. Oh, just like he did about Sicko.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Gupta's report was accurate.

Gardasil is 100% effective against certain strains of HPV.

[berni_mccoy]

122. Even Merck doesn't make that claim. Now you are just making shit up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Actually, the National Cancer Institute makes that claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil#Efficacy

You're confusing efficacy against viral strains versus precentage of cervical cancer caused by those strains.

But then again, you thought gardasil was for herpes. So it's not like you're paying attention.

[berni_mccoy]

124. Thanks for proving you are a moron and can't read: "nearly 100 percent" does not equal 100%

And that's not against the strain, but for the pre-cancerous cells. And it's not 100%. If you take 5 minutes to do honest research will show it is 96% effective at preventing the HPV strains.

Furthermore, you completely miss the point: Gupta was promoting the vaccine as 100% preventing cancer. When the "expert" said 100% and the correspondent said, "Wow, you don't hear a drug being 100% effective often", Gupta kept quiet.

And all of this was *before* the studies were completed or reviewed.

Moron.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. From your own post:

"Gupta: Best news of all, the vaccine prevented 100 percent of those two (viral) strains."

Did you even read your own posts?

[berni_mccoy]

126. And he's wrong and pre-emptive about that statement.

And he never corrected the "expert" or the correspondent when the drew a conclusion that it was 100% effective against the cancer.

Do you even listen?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. 96% rounds up to 100%

You're splitting hairs.

[berni_mccoy]

128. Not when it comes to drugs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. Ooo, and look at this.

Didn't even take me 5 minutes to google.

http://thewelltimedperiod.blogspot.com/2007/04/gardasil-efficacy-update.html

100% efficacy against certain cancers in certain strains.

[berni_mccoy]

130. Get over it, you are wrong.

Gupta's problem is that he makes knowingly false claims to push a point.

He's consistent with that, when it comes to promoting drugs and when it comes to attacking Sicko.

Your own link says 96% effective at preventing HPV 16/18, the two primary causes of cervical cancer. Not 100%

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. Gupta's report was accurate. He's a good doctor.

And he'll make a fine Surgeon General.

Get over it.

[berni_mccoy]

132. Nope. And we'll see if he makes it through the approval process.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. What reason would they have not to approve him?

Do you think congress is a bunch of misogynistic anti-vaccine nuts too?

[Occam Bandage]

95. You're just makin' shit up now. nt

[berni_mccoy]

102. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8063077&mesg_id=8063880

[polichick]

27. No, I don't think a big pharma hack should be SG...

I'm uncomfortable enough with Obama's Wall Street choices ~ kissing up to corporate America is NOT change.

[zulchzulu]

33. Any doctor at that level has to be involved in some pharma interests

It's a fact that in order to get to a point in your career as a successful doctor that would be a Surgeon General, you need links with your industry... hence the pharmas out there would not allow you to advance if you swayed from their agenda.

Just don't mention masturbation as a form of sexual relief.

[berni_mccoy]

70. Being involved in pharma interests and promoting their drugs are entirely different things.

[Occam Bandage]

75. So doctors shouldn't tell people which drugs are effective? You're losing coherence.

It's not like he's taking checks to go stumping for Gardasil, after all. He talked about how effective it was on his show. He stuck to the evidence base. That's what a public-health advocate should be doing.

[EFerrari]

76. Mr. Pfizer, is that you?

[Occam Bandage]

79. dupe

[Occam Bandage]

80. Do you deny the safety or effectiveness of Gardasil? Or do you instead believe

that doctors should not say that safe, effective drugs are safe and effective?

[EFerrari]

82. Whooooooooooooooooooooosh.

How many competent physicians do you know that endorse drugs?

[Occam Bandage]

86. Depends on what you mean by "endorse."

If you mean "say publicly that it is effective, because the evidence base says that it is," then the answer is "all of them."

If you mean "takes money to say that it is effective," then the answer is "none, and Sanjay Gupta does not either."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Another anti-vaccer.

Naturally.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5544016#5544048

[EFerrari]

104. Do you have any clue what you pretend to encompass

in that thickly stupid statement? No, you don't.

I have my own opinions about what happened to Doug and Marissa and I have never done anything to prevent anyone from being vaccinated and my own children were vaccinated into the bargain. I've never written about the topic or gone on any campaign to further my own opinion.

You just went right over the line and for nothing and for less. There is a big discussion about these vaccinations in the scientific community. There's nothing anti-science about it. Science is questioning and testing, genius.

[berni_mccoy]

109. He's an anti-thinker who is posing as a scientist. You may want to update your ignore list.

[EFerrari]

110. I'm good, berni.

In all the hard science classes I attended, never did any of my professors pitch the idea that we should just memorize the status quo. I must have missed that unit, over and over and over again.

lol

[EFerrari]

111. You don't know that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. All of them.

How many competent physicians do you know that do not endorse drugs?

[EFerrari]

99. I've never been treated by shills. My doctors have given me

the upside and the downside and the choices.

What? Are you holding Big Pharma paper or just worshiping?

[zulchzulu]

83. Gardasil is made by Merck...

Pfizer makes...

VIAGRA!!!

[EFerrari]

88. LOL! Point taken . . or, something.

[yardwork]

74. Are you a physician?

[zulchzulu]

85. Um...

No...

But I hav done work in the healthcare industry in the past and my assessment is based on that...

[Bluebear]

73. Sanjay Gupta will only be singing ONE SONG!!!!1

[EFerrari]

77. We only have one Big Pharma mouthpiece at a time!111

[merh]

91. Do they type those labels all by themselves?

If so, don't guess they would have time for much else.





























:hide:

[Colobo]

105. Gupta will work for Obama. Whatever Obama tells him to do

he will do. I'm confident Obama will use Dr. Gupta wisely.

[berni_mccoy]

106. Hopefully, Gupta won't use Obama.

[EFerrari]

108. So good to know Obama will be surrounded by yes men

just as he wanted. Oh, wait. He said he didn't want that.

[AZBlue]

112. Does this OP have a point??

I don't see it.

[Jennicut]

115. Gupta has done some good programs about the state of our food supply

The choices we are given are terrible and filled with crap like high fructose corn syrup. He is not being an industry hack on that. I am a diabetic and the food we get at the grocery store is filled with chemicals and corn syrup.

[berni_mccoy]

116. I've never said he hasn't done good (or informative) shows and I agree about the food issue

Nutrition is very important in our family as well (see my sig line).

But. Gupta has wasted his credibility by promoting drugs for sponsors and by using RW talking points to knowingly and falsely discredit the film Sicko, undermining the importance of the healthcare crisis we face today.

[Jennicut]

118. Well, we shall see how he does. Surgeon General is low on the totem poll

in an administration and the least of my worries. I am just happy Obama picked Panetta for the CIA, we need a shake up there.

[berni_mccoy]

119. Agreed. People freak out here when someone says they are disappointed.

[Jennicut]

120. To even have a discussion about outrage over Sanjay Gupta of all people is funny