One in two GPs 'will refuse swine flu vaccine' (Pulsetoday.co.uk)

[Kuko 4000]

One in two GPs 'will refuse swine flu vaccine'

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=23&storycode=4123491&c=1

Interesting comments in the, er, comments section:

Andy Lewis | 25 Aug 09
This is pretty serious and I think Pulse should be more careful here. We do not know what questions you asked, how you selected the GPs, what the breakdown of responses are. Without this info, it is pretty difficult to assess the significance of what you have done. In the meantime, we get alarmist headlines in the Daily Mail based on this: "Half of GPs refuse swine flu vaccine over testing fears"

Editor's comment
This was a quick email survey which simply asked: Do you plan to have the swine flu vaccine yourself? It was sent to several hundred GPs who weren't selected apart from the fact that they are all known Pulse readers. We didn't press release the results, but the national newspapers do closely monitor our website and I did provide a comment for a Daily Mail reporter. I would agree that the survey was relatively small, but it was the third such survey in the last week to find that healthcare professionals are likely to refuse swine flu vaccination in fairly large numbers. A peer-reviewed study in Hong Kong has found the same thing. Richard Hoey Editor, Pulse

I do think the numbers seem very small (115 Pulse, 216 GP newspaper) (and as far as I know, DoH rejected these results for this reason), but if this turns out to be close to the truth, what do you think are their reasons for not taking the vaccine?

I would think it's obviously a wise move to take it, and would have thought that this is the default position for a GP.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealt...ionandGuidance/Vaccinationprogramme/DH_104321

Health and Social Care Workers
Q: As a health care worker I have been identified as a priority group. Why should I receive the vaccine above anyone else?

Front line health and social care workers will be offered the vaccine at the same time as the first clinical at risk groups as they are at increased risk of infection from the nature of their work; and at increased risk of transmitting that infection to susceptible patients.

I guess my main point is, how much weight are you giving to these polls? Any stories from the field? I personally know a young (29) Finnish doctor who would not recommend the vaccine for anyone.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What kind of "doctors" did they poll?? I wouldn't doubt if they included chiros and NDs as "general" practitioners.

 

[Tapio]

Hi!

Here's a link to the Hong Kong survey.

Results: The overall willingness to accept pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccine was only 28.4% in the first survey, conducted at WHO influenza pandemic alert phase 3. No significant changes in the level of willingness to accept pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccine were observed despite the escalation to alert phase 5. The willingness to accept pre-pandemic H1N1 vaccine was 47.9% among healthcare workers when the WHO alert level was at phase 5. The most common reasons for an intention to accept were "wish to be protected" and "following health authority’s advice." The major barriers identified were fear of side effects and doubts about efficacy. More than half of the respondents thought nurses should be the first priority group to receive the vaccines. The strongest positive associating factors were history of seasonal influenza vaccination and perceived risk of contracting the infection.

Interesting.

 

[Fishstick]

I would reckon that most practicing GP's are not in the risk category of infants or elderly. Considering the actual lethality of swine flu, I don't see a reason why people should be vaccinating (for this flu!) unless they are specifically at risk?

 

[Rolfe]

What kind of "doctors" did they poll?? I wouldn't doubt if they included chiros and NDs as "general" practitioners.

Eos, dear, this is a British publication and apparently a British survey. We don't have "chiros and NDs" in the medical profession. They are all firmly located in the Outer Darkness.

My feeling is that the "silent majority" who have no problems just didn't bother to respond, so the poll was dominated by atypical opinions keen to make themselves heard.

Rolfe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would reckon that most practicing GP's are not in the risk category of infants or elderly. Considering the actual lethality of swine flu, I don't see a reason why people should be vaccinating (for this flu!) unless they are specifically at risk?

Well it is possibly that they might have patients who are in some risk category. But why should they care about their patients health anyway?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Eos, dear, this is a British publication and apparently a British survey. We don't have "chiros and NDs" in the medical profession. They are all firmly located in the Outer Darkness.

So just homeopaths then.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I read a similar poll of nurses recently (I think it was in one of my mam's nursing magazines). Some of their reasons were concerns about safety (not enough testing done), not wanting to/being able to take the time off work for the jab and not considering swine flu a serious risk to their health.

ETA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/s...s-willing-to-have-swine-flu-vaccine-poll.html

And here is a nurses' forum discussing it:

http://allnurses.com/pandemic-flu-forum/only-third-nurses-418684.html

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I'm neither in the UK nor a GP, but add me to the list of medical professionals who won't be getting the vaccine. It's really simple at my end.

First: The current strain has killed far fewer people than the amount of media attention implies. The flu always kills people, and often more than this particular strain has. The only thing special about this one, if anything, is that it came out of sequence, and appeared in the US and europe in the summer rather than the winter. If I get this, I'll have pretty much the same chance of surviving it as any flu, and I've survived many cases of the flu.

Second: The vaccine is for the current strain. If the current strain mutates to something more virulent, the chance of this vaccine actually having any effect at all on the new strain is pretty much nil.

Third: This vaccine is being rushed into production. I've got great faith in the ability of the various pharmaceutical companies to make a safe product, but this is being rushed through. I don't really want to be an early adopter here. It sounds like there will be production after the initial batch of doses, so there will be chances to get this later if needed, but right now I don't see the need.

A

 

[Rolfe]

So just homeopaths then.

Yes, but not very many of them, in the grand scheme of things.

Rolfe.

 

[Tapio]

Interesting post, Andrew. May I ask what your profession is?

I'd be really keen on hearing if other medical professionals here share Andrew's view?

Why/why not?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Third: This vaccine is being rushed into production. I've got great faith in the ability of the various pharmaceutical companies to make a safe product, but this is being rushed through. I don't really want to be an early adopter here. It sounds like there will be production after the initial batch of doses, so there will be chances to get this later if needed, but right now I don't see the need.

A

Is it being significantly more rushed than the usual seasonal flu vaccination or are they not taking the same steps as they would do to check the safety of that?

 

[Capsid]

Third: This vaccine is being rushed into production. I've got great faith in the ability of the various pharmaceutical companies to make a safe product, but this is being rushed through. I don't really want to be an early adopter here. It sounds like there will be production after the initial batch of doses, so there will be chances to get this later if needed, but right now I don't see the need.

A

All flu vaccines are rushed through. New flu vaccines are made each year, this is no different.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Interesting thing happened today, the doctor I mentioned earlier had worries about the safety of the vaccine, he mentioned GBS as one of the very serious risk factors. I then proceeded to ask him to compare our sources of information on this and gave him a couple of links relevant to the discussion (heavily woo-influenced article about the conspiracy behind "Swine Flu"):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

...and the one about GBS and vaccines (risk factor about 1 : 1 000 000 for the last 30 years or so) by Steven Novella:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=784

Etc.

After a while he wrote that he's not familiar enough about the issue at hand or the overall vaccine history. It was encouraging to see that a person who had held such a strong position on something was ready to consider his stance - but at the same time a bit troublesome to see a practising doctor being so uncritical in the face of very suspicious claims in the original article that we discussed. Among other things, I was very surprised by his lack of interest in source reliability (EDIT: main sources given in the article were Mercola, Horowitz and Globalresearch.ca), I had seen him being very impressed by Zeitgeist before and decided to jump in the discussion to see what's going on.

Conclusion: the world needs more exposure to the basic curriculum of scepticism.

 

[Kuko 4000]

All flu vaccines are rushed through. New flu vaccines are made each year, this is no different.

Yep, this is pretty much what I've understood as well from reading Steven Novella and others.

The flu vaccine uses the same basic technology that has been used for decades, and therefore it is very reliable and the risks are fairly well known. Each year the vaccine has to be tweaked to target the likely strains of Influenza A that will be prominent that year. So the risks from the vaccine may vary slightly as new strains are being targeted, but over the last 30 years since the 1976 episode the risk of GBS has been steady at about 1 in a million – far less than the risk of the flu itself.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=784

(The same link as above.)

 

[Aepervius]

but at the same time a bit troublesome to see a practising doctor being so uncritical in the face of very suspicious claims in the original article that we discussed.

This DOES NOT surprise me in the least. Firstly many doctor are just like many other professional: they learn at a certain point of time, and then use that knowledge with a few small necessary update but never really are keen to keep up with the latest research. Secondly doctor are NOT scientific/scientist. Some do indeed go into science research but the vast majority of GP are what I call "plumber". They suffer from the same fallacy and bad habits than your average Joe has got. So if you think GP / doctor in general HAVE to have a scientific mind and keep up with research, think again. We may have here a few doctor which break the mold (particularly a sexy veterinarian ), but this is not the general case in my experience. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence for both of those points.

In view of the above it is not surprising to see doctor (or even nurse) think some fallacy or dumb stuff.

 

[Kuko 4000]

So if you think GP / doctor in general HAVE to have a scientific mind and keep up with research, think again.

Yep, you are correct, and I did have to think again, again. It was also the final push that I needed to start planning a new project I've had in mind for a couple of years now.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, dear, this is a British publication and apparently a British survey. We don't have "chiros and NDs" in the medical profession. They are all firmly located in the Outer Darkness.

My feeling is that the "silent majority" who have no problems just didn't bother to respond, so the poll was dominated by atypical opinions keen to make themselves heard.

Rolfe.

Huh? Outer darkness how? They are all allowed to call themselves general practitioners/doctors here! If you're a specialist, like a cardiologist, then that is different, so you're not a "gp".

That makes sense about non-respondents. I wouldn't doubt that was the tactic to get the numbers.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

People at risk of GB are more likely to get it when they get the flu than when they get the flu vaccine. People at risk of GB can also get it when they get surgery. Pretty much, if you're at risk of GB, you'll probably get it some time. Not a good reason for people to avoid vaccination agaist the flu.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/guillain-barre-syndrome/DS00413

Vaccinating people against H1N1 now would go a long way to prevent it from mutating into a deadlier form.

 

[blutoski]

I found the list of participants vague, and think we'd benefit a bit from a more detailed breakdown:

Participants 2255 healthcare workers completed the questionnaires in the two studies. They were doctors, nurses, or allied health professionals working in the public hospital system.

Having worked in a hospital, there are a lot of roles that don't require significant medical knowledge, even though they may require physiology or biology. Would 'allied health professionals' include, say, radiology technicians and blood lab techs?