Medical Hysterias - real or the result of irresponsible jour
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:03 am
This is a subject I think about a lot.
Often, when medical issues are reported by the mainstream media, they are reported in such a way as to present a "headline" that is attention grabbing and appears newsworthy. The problem is that the articles rarely get the facts straight and the public that reads them doesn't have access to peer reviewed medical journals, nor are they equipped to read them.
A recent examples in veterinary medicine would be the contaminated pet food scare and the discovery of a new strain of parvovirus in the US.
The melamine scare caused all sorts of problems. Vets were overloaded with calls and visits by owners with well pets that had eaten food that may or may not have been exposed to the tainted food. At the height of the hysteria, the hospital were I work saw exactly 1 case of suspected poisoning and exactly 0 deaths. The animals that became ill were either very young, very small (such as cats), or already had impaired kidneys (the food pushed them over the edge). The treatment for renal insufficiency due to the tainted food was to stop feeding it (duh) and hospitalize over night on fluids to diurese (clear the kidneys) the animal. The food companies paid for these treatments.
The real cost was not the vet bills that was the real problem, but the general reaction of course. A lot of people told me they had switched to cooking for their pets to insure they were getting safe food. My response was "why? They're going to find melamine in the human food supply too."
Which, they have.
The parvo strain is another one. (Parvo is a virus that causes very serious diarrhea in dogs. Puppies are vaccinated against it and dogs receive booster vaccinations as adults. Like the flu virus, there are different strains, and like the flu vaccine we get, only certain strains are included.) Since last August they've been posting all sorts of notices at shelters about how this new wave of "stronger more deadly parvo" is sweeping shelters and describing the steps taken to protect their populations (and thus your pets if you should adopt one of their animals) against it. The news media has reported about it as well.
Again, vets are receiving frantic calls and visitis particularly since the main symptom of parvo virus is diarrhea and this is dogs we're talking about. Just like us, sometimes dogs get diarrhea. But not all diarrhea is parvo. (In fact, it usually isn't parvo.)
Another thing is that owners are demanding the "special parvo vaccine" recommended by their local shelter/neighbor/google. The thing is, the AVMA and the CDC jumped on this and all of the currently available vaccines protect dogs against the new strain in their non-biased tests.
So while vaccine breaks do happen with the new strain, it's not really news since they happen with all vaccines.
And speaking of vaccines and medical misinformation, back in the human medical world, there is still a debate about whether or not childhood vaccines cause autism. The result is parents refusing to vaccinate their children and disease that were at one time nearly eradicated in the US (such as measles) are on the rise.
People seem so willing to follow what is news that they don't look at facts it seems. One of the facts is that vaccination is one of the single greatest medical discoveries of our time and is directly responsible for the longer lives we live and the incredibly low childhood mortality parents enjoy.
It shocks me that people would give that up just because they fear unproven rumor.
What do you think? Am I an alarmist on the other side or should journalism enjoy the same checks and balances that medical journals do (they are peer reviewed to insure the accuracy of the data and reporting) when reporting on subjects that may affect public health and safety?
-e
Often, when medical issues are reported by the mainstream media, they are reported in such a way as to present a "headline" that is attention grabbing and appears newsworthy. The problem is that the articles rarely get the facts straight and the public that reads them doesn't have access to peer reviewed medical journals, nor are they equipped to read them.
A recent examples in veterinary medicine would be the contaminated pet food scare and the discovery of a new strain of parvovirus in the US.
The melamine scare caused all sorts of problems. Vets were overloaded with calls and visits by owners with well pets that had eaten food that may or may not have been exposed to the tainted food. At the height of the hysteria, the hospital were I work saw exactly 1 case of suspected poisoning and exactly 0 deaths. The animals that became ill were either very young, very small (such as cats), or already had impaired kidneys (the food pushed them over the edge). The treatment for renal insufficiency due to the tainted food was to stop feeding it (duh) and hospitalize over night on fluids to diurese (clear the kidneys) the animal. The food companies paid for these treatments.
The real cost was not the vet bills that was the real problem, but the general reaction of course. A lot of people told me they had switched to cooking for their pets to insure they were getting safe food. My response was "why? They're going to find melamine in the human food supply too."
Which, they have.
The parvo strain is another one. (Parvo is a virus that causes very serious diarrhea in dogs. Puppies are vaccinated against it and dogs receive booster vaccinations as adults. Like the flu virus, there are different strains, and like the flu vaccine we get, only certain strains are included.) Since last August they've been posting all sorts of notices at shelters about how this new wave of "stronger more deadly parvo" is sweeping shelters and describing the steps taken to protect their populations (and thus your pets if you should adopt one of their animals) against it. The news media has reported about it as well.
Again, vets are receiving frantic calls and visitis particularly since the main symptom of parvo virus is diarrhea and this is dogs we're talking about. Just like us, sometimes dogs get diarrhea. But not all diarrhea is parvo. (In fact, it usually isn't parvo.)
Another thing is that owners are demanding the "special parvo vaccine" recommended by their local shelter/neighbor/google. The thing is, the AVMA and the CDC jumped on this and all of the currently available vaccines protect dogs against the new strain in their non-biased tests.
So while vaccine breaks do happen with the new strain, it's not really news since they happen with all vaccines.
And speaking of vaccines and medical misinformation, back in the human medical world, there is still a debate about whether or not childhood vaccines cause autism. The result is parents refusing to vaccinate their children and disease that were at one time nearly eradicated in the US (such as measles) are on the rise.
People seem so willing to follow what is news that they don't look at facts it seems. One of the facts is that vaccination is one of the single greatest medical discoveries of our time and is directly responsible for the longer lives we live and the incredibly low childhood mortality parents enjoy.
It shocks me that people would give that up just because they fear unproven rumor.
What do you think? Am I an alarmist on the other side or should journalism enjoy the same checks and balances that medical journals do (they are peer reviewed to insure the accuracy of the data and reporting) when reporting on subjects that may affect public health and safety?
-e