NANCY SNYDERMAN IS CONCERNED ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN RESEARCH STUDIES

Dr. Nancy Snyderman is concerned about conflict of interest and possible bias in study outcomes. She has finally admitted that "Science is a moving target." She came out this morning on the Today Show and announced, "Critics are saying that this is in fact a flawed study." Yes! Nancy Snyderman is questioning the validity of published, peer-reviewed medical research! Finally!

She talks about the difference in groups of subjects who are diagnosed with the same illness but have variations of the disease, saying, "We can't throw them all in the same waste basket." Yes, Nancy! Children who are ill from birth are DIFFERENT from children who regressed after vaccination!

Dr. Snyderman goes on... "The American Cancer Society and the American Academy of Radiology have both come out in support of this study. I caution people there is a conflict of interest for both of those organizations. There's big money behind mammography."

What? The American Cancer Society? The American Academy of Radiology? Shit. I thought she was talking about autism. I thought she was talking about the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, and the big money in vaccinations. Silly me. What was I thinking?

Here is the link to this morning's segment.

Dr. Snyderman continues, "That means 21,800,000 women have to be screened every year to find the (2,000) tumors. Mammography is not without its consequences. It means the chest is getting radiated every year and the cumulative effects we don't know for years. I would ask everyone to stand back and pause and remember medicine is individualized. And for those women who don't have risk factors perhaps you don't need to start at 40...I wouldn't undo what our task force said last year based on this study... [the task force] said, "Remember to individualize and talk to your doctor because so much of this screening comes down to individual risk factors, your own concern, and frankly, the need not to overdiagnose, and not to overtreat in society today."

Amazing.
Let me edit the above paragraph and see how it sounds...

"That means 21,000,000 children (U.S. census data, 2008: 21 million children under age five) have to be vaccinated every year against seasonal flu in order to prevent somewhere between five and 200 deaths in this population. (source: CDC data) (Note: I was not immediately able to find the exact number of children under the age of five who died from the flu last year. If someone has that information handy, I will be glad to amend this post with that number. The CDC link provided is an average of flu deaths per year and the numbers given are for children and adolescents under age 19. The number of children under five who die from the flu would be expected to be much lower than 200.) This means children, beginning at six months of age, are receiving 25 micrograms of thimerosal (mercury) every year, and the cumulative effects we don't know for years. I would ask everyone to stand back and pause, and remember medicine is individualized."

Or, how about this...
"That means 4,317,119 infants (U.S. Census data, 2007) have to be vaccinated on the first day of life against the sexually transmitted disease, Hepatitis B, in order to prevent the approximately 300 cases of Hepatitis B (infection, not deaths in children under 14 years of age, CDC MMWR, October 31, 1997). Vaccination against Hepatitis B is not without risk. Click here to view a package insert from the vaccine manufacturer. I would ask everyone to stand back and pause and remember medicine is individualized. And for those infants who don't have risk factors perhaps you don't need to be vaccinated within 24 hours of birth. For example, if you are not sneaking out of your bassinet to have sex with the kid next to you in the nursery, and you are not using IV drugs, and your mother is not infected with Hepatitis B (or you are not going to be cared for by someone who is infected) then you can probably safely skip this vaccination. Remember to individualize and talk to your doctor because so much of this screening comes down to individual risk factors, your own concern, and frankly, the need not to overdiagnose, and not to overtreat in society today."

Or, one more...
"That means 21,000,000 children under the age of five have to receive a second dose of the MMR vaccine in order to catch to 5-10% of children who do not establish immunity after the first dose. MMR vaccination is not without its consequences. Click this link to view the package insert from the MMR vaccine manufacturer. Click this link to read about the severe consequences for one family. I would ask everyone to stand back and pause and remember medicine is individualized. Remember to individualize and talk to your doctor because so much of this screening comes down to individual risk factors, your own concern, and frankly, the need not to overdiagnose, and not to overtreat in society today."

Come on, Nancy. That's not so hard, is it?
Why the double-standard? Why exercise so much caution when it comes to women and not with children? Is it because you have breasts? Or is the reason because of your own conflicts of interest and biases? Where do your loyalties lie? With your "colleague," Paul Offit?
Your fawning praise of Dr. Offit in this Today Show segment would certainly suggest this may be the case.

Why argue for caution and advise people to question results of studies where there are conflicts of interest when it comes to mammograms, but not when it comes to vaccinations and your "colleagues?"
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, let me enlighten you, or rather, let Sheryl Atkisson enlighten you with her article, "How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?"

Dr. Snyderman, you have lost all credibility. I suggest you shut the #$@% up and do not open your mouth further regarding the safety of vaccines, unless it is to offer a retraction and an apology to those parents whose children have been harmed because they followed your "advice."