Alternative Medicine Pediatrician?

[nosuchreality]

That is ridiculous. I think you are undervaluing certain professions and their bona fides to provide services vs everyone else's.

Actually, I consider it relatively appropriate.  Doctors, like Stock Brokers have many conflicts of interests.  There's the time pressure, the sales rep pressure, the sales rep allure (go early and look at the Pharma reps, once), and on and on.

Plus there's the ego issue and the fact that they are neither all knowing nor omnipotent.

Except, medicine is generally governed by science while stock brokers are governed by "gut instincts" and emotions.  Medical studies are constantly published, evaluated, criticized, and thinking challenged.  Where does that happen in the financial field? 

I think doctors go with the gut and fail long before they break out any science in diagnosing or treating a person's issues.

I don't consider doctors omnipotent or all knowing but they know a heck of a lot more than me.  Of course, there are good and bad doctors (just like there are good and bad attorneys).  But I know for a fact how overwhelm an individual can be in a courtroom when s/he is a pro per.  I don't even know what to start with in an operating room.

Most start with the release from liability...  and long declaration of possible wrong outcomes.

Again, the initial discussion was about a person own "gut instinct" versus trained professional.

What's the medical consensus on proper diet and food?  How long ago was the anti-fat in food rage? Can they explain the French paradox? 

Go read the research, it's all over the place.

 

[OCgasman]

Irvinecommuter, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over vaccinations.  People make poor decisions all the time.  Folks will go to their pediatrician, they'll (hopefully) listen to their doc, and then decide for themselves whether they want or don't want vaccinations for their child.  Seems simple. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I think doctors go with the gut and fail long before they break out any science in diagnosing or treating a person's issues.

Again...science. 

I don't consider doctors omnipotent or all knowing but they know a heck of a lot more than me.  Of course, there are good and bad doctors (just like there are good and bad attorneys).  But I know for a fact how overwhelm an individual can be in a courtroom when s/he is a pro per.  I don't even know what to start with in an operating room.

Most start with the release from liability...  and long declaration of possible wrong outcomes.

Wow...lots of cynacism.  Still rather have a doctor.

Again, the initial discussion was about a person own "gut instinct" versus trained professional.


What's the medical consensus on proper diet and food?  How long ago was the anti-fat in food rage? Can they explain the French paradox? 

Go read the research, it's all over the place.

That's not science...that's fads.  The bottom line has always been calories consumed v. calorie expended.  There is more understanding about how people are satiated with food (or not) and that people may have different body structures and type but in the end, it's still "calories consumed v. calorie expended"

There are quite a few explanation for the French paradox...the most important of which is portion size.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Right, but assuming you remove the agency issues and find a good advisor, you will find higher returns.

Why? Because they have access to information that the general public does not. Access to that information comes at a cost - their service fees.

Actually, you don't have access to information that the general public does not.  That would be insider's trading.  Brokers just have a lot more time to read through reports and analysis but in the end it's a crap shoot.  Look at the losses taken by major brokerage firms...because some hotshot broker got it right a couple of times.  Go watch that frontline documentary...you do much better buying an index fund like Vanguard.

Have you ever worked in a financial institution? If so, you would know that markets are not set up for the little guy, they are shaped by big players making big moves. Markets are efficient as information is asymmetric by nature. So by the time you read something online, in a magazine or listen to an interview, the market has already moved.

To generate sustainable profits from participating in a market, you have to know what is going on
prior to the event, or as it occurs, not after the fact.

Again...that would be insider trading.  While I fully acknowledge they exist, it's not how 98% of the people can invest.  Again, go find me an investment banker that has succeeded longterm.  CNBC changes their "experts" every few years...

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvinecommuter, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over vaccinations.  People make poor decisions all the time.  Folks will go to their pediatrician, they'll (hopefully) listen to their doc, and then decide for themselves whether they want or don't want vaccinations for their child.  Seems simple.

Sure...but psudeo-science seriously irks me personally.  Clearly, I don't really believe that I can really change anyone but the discussion is interesting. 

 

[nosuchreality]

That's not science...that's fads.  The bottom line has always been calories consumed v. calorie expended.  There is more understanding about how people are satiated with food (or not) and that people may have different body structures and type but in the end, it's still "calories consumed v. calorie expended"

There are quite a few explanation for the French paradox...the most important of which is portion size.

No, it's an example of how incredibly lacking the medical establishment is on something as basic as diet.  Not dieting, diet.

Remember the food pyramid?  Medicine meets politics.  It happens with more than just the food pyramids.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That's not science...that's fads.  The bottom line has always been calories consumed v. calorie expended.  There is more understanding about how people are satiated with food (or not) and that people may have different body structures and type but in the end, it's still "calories consumed v. calorie expended"

There are quite a few explanation for the French paradox...the most important of which is portion size.

No, it's an example of how incredibly lacking the medical establishment is on something as basic as diet.  Not dieting, diet.

Remember the food pyramid?  Medicine meets politics.  It happens with more than just the food pyramids.

No...those are fads.  Dieting is a purely a consumer product.  People get too fat and want fast and easy ways to get rid of the fat/weight.  As far as I can remember, doctors have said:  eat less and exercise more.  No one wants to hear that.

There was nothing wrong with the original food pyramid per se.  It was somewhere vague and could have been better but it's a solid suggestion. 

 

[nosuchreality]

That's not science...that's fads.  The bottom line has always been calories consumed v. calorie expended.  There is more understanding about how people are satiated with food (or not) and that people may have different body structures and type but in the end, it's still "calories consumed v. calorie expended"

There are quite a few explanation for the French paradox...the most important of which is portion size.

No, it's an example of how incredibly lacking the medical establishment is on something as basic as diet.  Not dieting, diet.

Remember the food pyramid?  Medicine meets politics.  It happens with more than just the food pyramids.

No...those are fads.  Dieting is a purely a consumer product.  People get too fat and want fast and easy ways to get rid of the fat/weight.  As far as I can remember, doctors have said:  eat less and exercise more.  No one wants to hear that.

There was nothing wrong with the original food pyramid per se.  It was somewhere vague and could have been better but it's a solid suggestion. 

Lawyers are supposed to have good reading comprehension, see bold.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That's not science...that's fads.  The bottom line has always been calories consumed v. calorie expended.  There is more understanding about how people are satiated with food (or not) and that people may have different body structures and type but in the end, it's still "calories consumed v. calorie expended"

There are quite a few explanation for the French paradox...the most important of which is portion size.

No, it's an example of how incredibly lacking the medical establishment is on something as basic as diet.  Not dieting, diet.

Remember the food pyramid?  Medicine meets politics.  It happens with more than just the food pyramids.

No...those are fads.  Dieting is a purely a consumer product.  People get too fat and want fast and easy ways to get rid of the fat/weight.  As far as I can remember, doctors have said:  eat less and exercise more.  No one wants to hear that.

There was nothing wrong with the original food pyramid per se.  It was somewhere vague and could have been better but it's a solid suggestion. 

Lawyers are supposed to have good reading comprehension, see bold.

I don't quite get your point...are you saying that the medical establishment has been wrong about diets?  I mean, medical establishment is pretty consistent throughout the world about a good diet consisting of a variety of foods including fruits and vegetables.  You can learn more about foods and isolate out specific good factors to promote but ultimately most the diets promoted (Mediterranean/French/etc.) focus on small portions.

There are many studies that show that healthy eating habit were originally as a result of necessity, not because they knew more about health.  Countries that grew in social wealth also start developing obesity issues as they can afford to eat more meats and convenience foods. 
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137823222/mediterraneans-abandon-their-famous-diet

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Right, but assuming you remove the agency issues and find a good advisor, you will find higher returns.

Why? Because they have access to information that the general public does not. Access to that information comes at a cost - their service fees.

i think ICs point is good advisors, get their ass handed to them all the time. look at all the hedge funds that have gone under that are managed by these good advisors.

 
Yup...and major brokerage firms as well.  Let's ask Bears Sterns and Lehman Brothers.

Goldman Sachs are also not that great:
http://business.time.com/2013/05/31...-average-joes-just-dont-expect-to-make-money/
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...nds-private-investment-partnerships-investors

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Anyone who suggests that it takes more skill or qualifications to be a lawyer than to price derivatives or engineer financial products is clearly misled.

Which is exactly why the government and ratings agencies cannot figure them out. They were in over their heads.

I'm not talking about qualification or skill...I'm talking about outcome.  You need a lawyer because litigation is highly structured with lots of rules that an average person is not used to.  There are also things like discovery and motions that an experience attorney can use to the benefit of his/her client.  Most people go into court thinking it's about justice when it's not...it's about what you can present.  99% of cases settled...the amount of settlement is greatly dependent upon how well a case is packaged and how well you prepare.

You don't ever want to represent yourself in a criminal matter.  Ever.

There are a lot of really really smart people working in the financial industry but in the end, the outcome is random and unpredictable.  That's because there is a large emotional and psychological component to the stock market that cannot be accounted for. 

Good lawyers can get results consistently and for a long period of time because there is a method to the madness.  There isn't such a method for investments.  Again, studies have shown that you're better off just investing in an index fund where there is little thought given.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That is ridiculous. I think you are undervaluing certain professions and their bona fides to provide services vs everyone else's.

Actually, I consider it relatively appropriate.  Doctors, like Stock Brokers have many conflicts of interests.  There's the time pressure, the sales rep pressure, the sales rep allure (go early and look at the Pharma reps, once), and on and on.

Plus there's the ego issue and the fact that they are neither all knowing nor omnipotent.

Except, medicine is generally governed by science while stock brokers are governed by "gut instincts" and emotions.  Medical studies are constantly published, evaluated, criticized, and thinking challenged.  Where does that happen in the financial field? 

I don't consider doctors omnipotent or all knowing but they know a heck of a lot more than me.  Of course, there are good and bad doctors (just like there are good and bad attorneys).  But I know for a fact how overwhelm an individual can be in a courtroom when s/he is a pro per.  I don't even know what to start with in an operating room.

Again, the initial discussion was about a person own "gut instinct" versus trained professional.

Most product structures are proprietary, but you can find some information via working papers online:
http://iafe.org/html/pro_dev.php

And in the end...what are the results of those proprietary models/products?  Pretty much nothing...I remember there was a big deal in the 1980s when some highly respected economists and investment bankers thought that they "cracked" the investment puzzle by using computers....in the end, their fund crashed and burned.

How many times do you hear "analysts" on CNBC talk about how something didn't make sense or why the market is doing or not doing.  There will always be people who are "right" because there will always be people going against the grain.  Peter Schiff is a perfect example...guy was right on with the housing market because he screams gold and bear all the time.  He has been screaming the same inflation claim and still nothing.

 

[qwerty]

Long term capital is perhaps the biggest failure of those genius models.

Not sure if u guys watch suits on USA, there was an episode recently where the lawyers were going up investment bankers and the banker says: we saw you coming a mile away, we're investment bankers, we just call u for the paperwork.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You're right. The CDO and CDS's were pretty much nothing.

Those I know a lot of about...it's pretty much ways to re-package risks that resulted in the skewing of the risk/benefit analysis and led to the housing bubble and subsequent economic collapse.  If that's progress, you can have them back.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Long term capital is perhaps the biggest failure of those genius models.

Not sure if u guys watch suits on USA, there was an episode recently where the lawyers were going up investment bankers and the banker says: we saw you coming a mile away, we're investment bankers, we just call u for the paperwork.

Yes!  That's who I was thinking off.  I love the wiki entry on them:

John W. Meriwether headed Salomon Brothers' bond trading desk until he resigned in 1991 amid a trading scandal.

In 1993 he created Long-Term Capital as a hedge fund and recruited several Salomon bond traders and two future Nobel Laureates, Myron S. Scholes and Robert C. Merton.  Other principals in the firm included Eric Rosenfeld, Greg Hawkins, Larry Hilibrand, William Krasker, Dick Leahy, Victor Haghani, James McEntee, Robert Shustak, and David W. Mullins Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

The other problem with investment bankers is that they are always focused on the short-term.

Lawyers always win in the end...they always do. 

 

[IrvineHousewife]

Again, the initial discussion was about a person own "gut instinct" versus trained professional.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

What I meant by gut instinct was, when meeting a Pediatrician for an initial consultation go with your gut instinct on whether or not the doctor is right or wrong for you. That's all.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Again, the initial discussion was about a person own "gut instinct" versus trained professional.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me.

What I meant by gut instinct was, when meeting a Pediatrician for an initial consultation go with your gut instinct on whether or not the doctor is right or wrong for you. That's all.

I guess that depends on why you believe the doctor is right or wrong for you.  If you don't have a good rapport with the doctor or feel like he/she is not competent, then probably yes.  If you don't think s/he is right for you because they are saying things that don't mesh with your own understanding of medical knowledge/information, then no.

Again, I really would like for you to point me to the factors/evidence that turned you from vaccine to no vaccine.  I am honestly curious about your claims.  For all I know, I'm doing it all wrong.  I would hope that if you believe that vaccines are not good for children, you would want to help educate your fellow parents.

 

[IrvineHousewife]

I spoke with physicians, read medical journals given to me by physicians and midwives, books and spoke with other parents. I don't have articles to forward or links to share because it was too hard to differentiate online whether or not something was truly aboveboard.

This was the best, most un-biased and fact-based book I read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Vaccine-Book-Decision-Parenting/dp/0316180521/ref=pd_sim_b_2

I encourage you to look into for yourself though. There's a wealth of knowledge out there.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I spoke with physicians, read medical journals given to me by physicians and midwives, books and spoke with other parents. I don't have articles to forward or links to share because it was too hard to differentiate online whether or not something was truly aboveboard.

This was the best, most un-biased and fact-based book I read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Vaccine-Book-Decision-Parenting/dp/0316180521/ref=pd_sim_b_2

I encourage you to look into for yourself though. There's a wealth of knowledge out there.

Thanks for the link.  I have looked into this a lot.  I have a science degree and challenges to science always appeal to me.

Dr. Sears' has had a long stance against vaccines (at least it is currently being administered in the US)...so his take is not really new to me.  A lot of criticism,
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/robert-sears-alternative-vaccine-schedule

Of course, Dr. Sears is not against vaccine but believes that they should be spread out.  The problem is that the critical age for disease is often the first 12 months and a reduce schedule simply does not offer the necessary protection.  His reliance on "herd immunity" is also very dangerous IMO.  It's basically giving parents a way out of their fears based upon actions taken by others.  Essentially, it's you don't have to "expose your kid to danger" as long as others do it for you (of course I don't really believe in the danger but that's the general idea).  My biggest problem with is that the book is pretty much advice/"logic" driven with little or no science to back up the claims.  Again...gut feelings.

Great discussion: http://www.salon.com/2010/10/13/vaccine_book_sears/

But it doesn?t take long to see the fault lines in ?The Vaccine Book,? making that choice a false one. Sears uses maddening circular logic in his recommendations. Take the chapter on the MMR vaccine (used against measles, mumps and rubella), where Sears implies that skipping the vaccine is OK because ?measles is now extremely rare and in most cases harmless. The chance that a child will catch measles and be one of the rare fatalities is extremely low.?

But the near-zero risk of contracting measles, mumps or rubella happened thanks to vaccinations. Before introduction of the MMR in the United States in 1963, measles caused an estimated 4 million cases, with 48,000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths reported annually. Because of mass vaccination, measles were wiped out of the United States in 2000. But in 2008, a large measles outbreak occurred in San Diego, just south of where Sears practices.

What Sears didn?t acknowledge is that Patient Zero in the San Diego outbreak was the child of vaccine refusers who contracted measles on vacation in Switzerland and brought it back home. A recent study by researchers on the role of vaccine refusal in this outbreak was staggering: 839 people were exposed, 11 additional measles cases were reported (all in unvaccinated children); one infant, too young to be vaccinated, had to be hospitalized. At a time when the state of California is in devastating financial straits, it cost San Diego serious health care dollars: $10,376 per case, for a total of $124,517 (and the hospitalized infant?s bill was nearly $15,000). Forty-eight children too young to be vaccinated were quarantined for several weeks, meaning parents had to miss work and wages at an average cost of $775 per child.

When I asked Sears about balancing patients? needs against those of society at large, he told me he believes vaccine-averse parents usually aren?t persuaded by doctors? appeals to community health. ?Most parents are selfish ? not in a negative way, but in a realistic way,? he said. I?m inclined to agree with him: That argument has rarely worked for me in the exam room with a vaccine-ambivalent parent. But we can?t just ignore public health, telling parents they make their own choice as long as they keep it to themselves.

Frontline also did a great segment on this issue including an interview with Dr. Sears:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/interviews/sears.html

Interestingly enough, the reason why he came up with the alternative schedule is because people were not vaccinating period...he basically did it as a compromise.

As a doctor, I don't like to undermine the CDC and to help parents mistrust the CDC. Obviously the CDC does so much good for us. They have our best intentions in mind, and they do so much research. And I think parents can overall trust what the CDC says. Now, as a doctor, I also recognize that no matter how much I say you can trust the CDC, some parents aren't going to trust them. They don't trust the conspiracies of Big Pharma and all the financial ties between Big Pharma and the CDC. A lot of parents just worry about that, so they're not going to listen to what the CDC says.

As a doctor, how I approach that is, I say: "OK, you have the right to your opinion. Let's figure out how I can work with you as a doctor in a way that understands your worries, understands you don't trust the CDC. So how can I, as a doctor, work with you?'' I don't want to just kick you out of my office, like most doctors do. If parents question the system, then they often get kicked out of doctors' offices, and that doesn't help anybody. ...

I am curious how you got from Dr. Sears' arguments to no vaccine at all.  I am also curious to see why you think Dr. Sears is unbiased

 

[zovall]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Vaccine-Book-Decision-Parenting/dp/0316180521/ref=pd_sim_b_2

I encourage you to look into for yourself though. There's a wealth of knowledge out there.

I read this book and I would highly recommend it as well.  I felt much more educated about the topic after reading it.  I read it after our first was born (I recommend reading it before your child is born if possible) and it gave me more insight into what vaccines are part of the schedule and information on the diseases themselves.  It also talked about what is in the various vaccines and that different companies have different formulations.  We spread the shots out and having the Alternative Vaccination Schedule in the back of the book was very helpful.  We found a pediatrician who recommended the AAP schedule but respected our wishes to spread the shots out.