Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Becky Jungbauer | January 6th 2009 09:33 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Truth Universally Acknowledged articles

All

About Becky Jungbauer

A scientist and journalist by training, I enjoy all things science, especially science-related humor. My column title is a throwback to Jane Austen's famous first line in Pride and Prejudice


... Full Bio

Was anyone else as dismayed about the supposed choice for surgeon general as I was?
President-elect Obama approached CNN's chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta to be the country's next surgeon general, the cable network said Tuesday. CNN said it has kept Gupta from reporting on health care policy.

Perhaps he is a wonderful doctor, although who knows how many patients he sees during his busy schedule full of on-camera appearances and national magazine articles and who knows what else. And perhaps he has learned to temper his recommendations since 2006, when I first started to take issue with everybody's favorite sculpted and coiffed medical posterchild. Or since 2007. Hmm. Maybe not.

The AP article continues:
Gupta hosts "House Call" on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News, and writes a column for Time magazine. He is a neurosurgeon and is on the faculty at Emory University School of Medicine inSanjay Gupta Atlanta. During the Clinton administration, he was a White House fellow and special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The surgeon general typically isn't heavily involved in shaping an administration's policy, but it can be a very effective bully pulpit. Past surgeons general have proved instrumental in battling tobacco and AIDS.

Having such a well-known TV personality could bring the surgeon general attention not seen since C. Everett Koop help the position under President Ronald Reagan. Koop is best known for pushing to make AIDS a public health issue rather than a moral issue, and Reagan faced pressure to fire him. Koop has said Reagan never interfered.

What's next? Dr. Phil as the surgeon general? Was Dr. 90210 not available? Why not Dr. Pangloss, Dr. Van Helsing, Dr. Zhivago? Here is a list of other doctors that Obama could have considered. I wonder if he'd still shill for CNN. He could change his CNN segment to "White House Call."

Comments

jtwitten's picture
I think Orac at Respectful Insolence sums up concerns with Gupta, nicely.  The biggest issue to me is the his soft-treatment of anti-vaccine zealots (from Orac):

What concerns me even more that that is that, when it comes to one
of the most important threats to public health of our time, the
antivaccine movement, specifically the movement that claims that
vaccines cause autism, Dr. Gupta has shown a maddening tendency to
straddle the fence and play both sides in his reporting. His coverage
of the Hannah Poling case, in particular, was distressingly credulous, so much so that the crank blog Age of Autism approved of it heartily. Meanwhile, on his own blog, Dr. Gupta was disturbingly sympathetic to the antivaccine viewpoint:


I want to continue the discussion today. Couple of points.
First of all, it seems as if parents bring up concerns about vaccines,
they are automatically portrayed as anti-vaccine. Why is that? Is it
possible to completely believe in the power and benefits of vaccines,
but still have legitimate and credible concerns?


Vaccine compliance is a major public health issue and one in which the Surgeon General's role as a communicator could be decisive.

Hank's picture
I am okay with being considerate toward people concerned about vaccines - people want answers and medicine (and especially pharmaceutical companies) cannot always be bastions of time-tested evidence before recommending treatments - that's why there are lawsuits and settlements.    

If Merck loses a $5 billion judgment on Vioxx, and has a lot of late stage failures in new products, and then starts marketing to parents that their children could die without an HPV vaccine, it had better be viewed with some skepticism.   And I am not some anti-vaccine crank, I just recognize that 'better safe than sorry, so give us $100' marketing is not science.  Fortunately Merck now has a lot of people using 'you are a Holocaust denier killing babies if you disagree with every vaccine we make' language for free on the internet (not you, but you know what I mean).

There's a difference between cautious and being irrational though.   Anyone who denies their kid a polio vaccine is a little deranged.  But when pharm marketing says every kid needs a shingles vaccine??  Be serious.

That said, my concern with Gupta is basically the same as yours.   Touch, smart choices have to be made and Obama being struck by star power is not a good sign.   Hopefully we are underestimating Gupta because he is on TV.   If he signs Anderson Cooper to be Secretary of the Army, then I am worried.

jtwitten's picture
It is all about cost-benefit ratios.  The scientific method is an excellent tool for calculating those ratios.  Anti-vaccine activists have systematically and exponentially inflated the risks of vaccines.  While I completely agree that medical decisions should be based on the science and not on marketing, the general risk level of a product like Vioxx and vaccines are not on the same scale.   For the majority of vaccines, the risks are so small that any marginal benefit validates the treatment.  My infant daughter is currently working her way through the vaccine schedule (thanks to which her life expectancy at birth was already over 70, up from 40 in ~1900).  Most of the risks (as established by clinical trial) posed by the vaccines she receives are actually due to the need to create a puncture wound to administer the injection (i.e., infection).

One must also be careful not to always equate money and self-interest.  Big Pharma does some unsavory things to make a buck; but the anti-vaccine campaigning of Jenny McCarthy clearly provides some benefit to her, even if it is simply a warm, tingly feeling for pursuing what she incorrectly believes to be a just cause.

Unlike the Vioxx issue (involving oversight and regulation), the vaccine issue is truly a public health issue due to the benefits of herd immunity.

Concerns of individuals should be treated considerately and with a rational and honest explanation of the evidence.  The willful misinformation spread by anti-vaccine fanatics should not be soft-pedaled.  Indeed, this misinformation creates pressure for vaccine manufacturers and doctors to overstate the benefits of individual vaccines (your, "their children could die without an HPV vaccine") to compensate for inflated risk perception in order to adjust the cost-benefit ratio back toward its actual value.

CNN is television and reporters do not always get to treat stories as they would like.  I will reserve my final judgment on Gupta until I can hear his answers to questions on this issue during confirmation.

Hank's picture
I just criticized pharmaceutical marketing but last year at this time I was defending them against insinuations they are only out to make a buck.
 
The difference on some new vaccines is they rely on the goodwill of implied benefit - if one vaccine was beneficial, they all must be.   Shingles and HPV are the two obvious new ones that need to have a science metric applied but they've had the usual reactionary bloggers lock-stepping against anyone who questions the cost versus benefit of them.   I want a guy representing Americans who is immune to both camps and just looks at the data and makes a call.

Being respectful when he disagrees with people about vaccines on TV is fine - CNN's job is to try and get the whole audience, not alienate a part of it - but I do want more character and decisiveness when he has lives at stake and not just ratings.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Here is a posting from New Scientist SF bureau chief Peter Aldhous. He does a nice job weighing the pros and cons.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.