So, the effect on my patients of the London doctor's second attack on
Measles vaccine on national television and inthe papers has been so far
as I can tell absolutely zero.
A couple of questions about vaccination, a couple of hits on the
practice immunisation page, and the targets achieved yet again.
BUT, will a GP somewhere who notes that his income has been reduced by
this moderate quality science, and abysmal rumour-mongering and
publicity grabbing sue the perpetrator, Wakefield, or would it be more
snesible to sue the broadcaster or pubisher?
We will have to wait a few years for the cases alleging damage as a
result of failure tovaccinate, I suppose.
Then again, perhaps we could just ditch the targets and substitute
something more sensible and in tune with the age, such as a targe that
in 50% of consutlations with an identifiable main problem the main
intervention was one which had been tested and regarded as effective -
an evidence-base target.
Or is 50% of 50% too high a target?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|