Should Cleveland Clinic’s Anti-Vax Physician Lose His Medical License?

Should Cleveland Clinic’s Anti-Vax Physician Lose His Medical License?

12
SHARE

Years ago, when I was less inflexible, I took up Pilates. My instructor, Jim, a charming chap with an infectious laughter, was a 911 truther. I’d egg him on to hear about his conspiracy theories. Jim believed that 911 was concocted by Bush and Haliburton so that the U.S. could invade Iraq to capture their oil. He thought that United Flight 93 never took off. Whatever happened after 911 became the motivation for 911. He was the sort of person who would have concluded that Mahatma Gandhi plotted the Second World War to free India from British rule.

I began to suspect that Jim was, to put it charitably, nice but dim. But he wasn’t that dim. He corrected me when I once, innocently, underpaid him. He was also smart at advertising and when he met my wife, he told her that she should join me for Pilates because it would strengthen our marital bond. My wife politely declined the bond strengthening. He was also very cued up with the nutritional sciences and warned me, without leaving a trace of irony, “don’t believe everything you read about diets.”

911 truthers remind me of antivaxxers. They share a deep paranoia which is impervious to logic and science and which becomes stronger when confronted with logic and science. What doesn’t change their minds, and little does, makes their beliefs stronger.

Recently, Dr. Daniel Neides from Cleveland Clinic, opined about the risks of immunization. Writing in the local newspaper, which I wouldn’t have known about if it weren’t for Twitter’s excitable crowd, he cautioned his readers about the industry and toxins. He said “we live in a toxic soup.” He alluded that vaccinations cause autism. For good scientific measure, he threw in the microbiome – an entity which will lead to much confusion before clarification.

The history of the anti-vaccination movement is the history of paranoia in the developed world. People in developing worlds don’t fear vaccinations – they have genuine fears to contend with. Vaccine phobia, though a marker of scientific illiteracy, can be traced to heavy paranoia of industry, and a belief in environmental utopianism. Only once in history has there been purer environmentalists – the Digambar sect of Jainism who believed that wearing clothes harmed the environment (don’t go looking for them – they no longer exist).

With a bit of historical reflection, you can see how “vaccines cause autism” got out of hand. I highly recommend Paul Offit’s “Autism’s False Prophets.” Andrew Wakefield’s now discredited research linking MMR with autism made social justice warriors positively tumescent. It’s easy to see why – greedy industrialists and greedy doctors polluting little, unsuspecting babies, that’s candy for righteous rage. It’s no surprise that Wakefield’s research was funded by trial lawyers –  a profession which makes a lot of money exploiting paranoia about greedy capitalists. Wakefield’s discredited findings moved the FDA and the Congress. Both right and left wing publications warned people of the dangers of immunization. It is possible that Cherie Blair, Tony Blair’s chakra-believing wife, and a gifted lawyer, also fell for the paranoia.

The tide has turned. It is vaccine skepticism which evokes considerable rage. Fighting antivaxxers is now the lowest common denominator of intellectual probity. No doubt, the fight is important, and, it seems, to be seen fighting is also important. To me, the antivaxxers, one of the most demonized constituencies, evoke pity rather than anger. I feel that if I shouted “boo” they’d collapse into a pile of liquid. But shaming them, by calling them selfish for free-riding herd immunity and putting immunosuppressed people at-risk, or stupid, or scientific illiterates, will unlikely persuade them to get vaccinated. Nor will they be persuaded by reams of data or a powerpoint showing that the confidence intervals for the likelihood that vaccinations cause autism, like the point estimate, is zero.

But doctors should know better. Should the anti-vax physician have his medical license revoked? Should his employer fire him? The near-unanimous view of physicians on Twitter was affirmative for the latter, and a desirability for the former. But once you think beyond stage 1, you’ll realize the matter isn’t so simple.

Let’s explore the case for revoking his medical license. The logic is taut. His piece advising against immunization is jeopardizing patients’ lives. But is that true? I mean is it true that there were people undecided about vaccinations, or felt that they should be vaccinated who, after reading his piece, and persuaded by his credibility as a doctor in the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, have decided against being vaccinated? Plausibly yes, but arguably no. Antivaxxers reject vaccination despite the evidence, and despite persuasion from mighty Ivy league doctors to get vaccinated. Their sensitivity to doctor’s advice to get vaccinated, whether positive or negative, is likely zero. They’d stay unvaccinated despite his piece, not because of it.

Thus, it’s likely that he was preaching to the choir and unlikely that the net mass of unvaccinated people changed by his forgettable piece. And, if you’re going to make an empirical case that he led to net harm, you’d also have to blame the social media which, in a Streisand effect, helped his piece reach people who wouldn’t have read it.

How about this rationale: physicians skeptical in the public domain about mass immunization, an indisputable standard of care (SOC), are unfit to practice? The rationale appeals because doctors with such scientific illiteracy so as to peddle fears about vaccination may be clinically incompetent. But let’s parse the issue because there are two problems. The first is that the anti-vax sentiment of doctors might not affect their clinical work. If they were radiologists, for example, adept at detecting acute pathology, it would scant matter what they thought about immunizations. You might find them annoying, but if they quietly cranked through the list, never missing important findings, would it matter to a medical tribunal if they believed in Santa Claus, or that the moon landing was a hoax, or that immunizations cause autism?

The second problem is that anti-vax doctors might not practice what they blog – that is they may still offer their patients vaccinations. Furthermore, they may resort to that capacious formulation called shared decision making, to show that the patient’s decision not to be vaccinated was the patient’s decision, not theirs. How will you prove that this was not so, particularly if the patient was an antivaxxer?

I’m unable to find any legal precedence of a physician found guilty of malpractice, or who has lost his or her medical license, for merely questioning an indisputable SOC in the public domain – if you know of such a case please let me know. It will be a tough case to try because it would, in effect, censor skepticism, and in a country with a strong tradition of free speech, evidenced by the protracted Scopes Monkey Trial, censoring skepticism, even if the skepticism is idiotic, would likely reach the supreme court. Antivaxxers would be emboldened and the anti-vax doctor would become a martyr. Vaccinations would become even more politicized than they are today.

There is clearly legitimate and illegitimate skepticism – skepticism of statins for primary prevention, now endorsed by the USPSTF and, therefore, standard of care, is legitimate, and skepticism of vaccinations is illegitimate. This begs the question: how do we define legitimate skepticism? To that, I can offer no better answer than Potter Stewart’s. When asked to define pornography, he said: “I know it when I see it.” You could argue that vaccinations are different from statins because not being vaccinated has negative externalities as it endangers others, and that vaccinations have the same effect across the whole group, neither of which is true for statins. However, these are post hoc rationalizations why skepticism of vaccinations should be censored. There’s no formalized framework for what’s legitimate skepticism of standard of care, in general, which impugns skepticism of vaccinations but doesn’t impugn skepticism of statins.

Censoring skepticism of vaccinations is a slippery slope which could be applied to any standard of care. Don’t think of the present, think what might happen fifty years from now. Science progresses when someone questions the status quo. Do we really wish to endanger this avenue for the sake of one physician?

Silencing skeptics in the U.S. is never a good idea as climate scientist, Michael Mann has found. He sued writer, Mark Steyn, for calling his research fraudulent. Whatever the outcome of the trial, Steyn has far from been silenced – he has upped the ante in his derision of Mann, and has even written a book solely devoted to ridiculing Mann. The suit has become an avoidable own goal for Mann. Climate science is already excessively politicized, to the detriment of the science, and Mann’s lawsuit doesn’t help – even if Mann wins, climate science loses.

The Cleveland Clinic, a private entity, where the First Amendment doesn’t apply, can dismiss the physician. But they may not wish to. Dr. Neides heads their Wellness Unit. Cleveland Clinic is the premier center, it seems, not only for mitral valve repair but Reiki and other para-medical phenomena. It’s likely that his views, specifically his morbid fear of industry and toxins, comports nicely with the mumbo-jumbo ethos of Wellness programs, an initiative which is the mother of quackery and which, it must be reminded, is enshrined in Obamacare, and whose provenance is, amongst other things, a study by preeminent economists. To put it bluntly, he’s quite possibly a cash cow for the clinic.  The brouhaha over his anti-vax piece is likely to draw even bigger crowds enamored by chakras and complementary and alternative medicine, meaning it won’t have harmed the Clinic’s bottom line. Physicians on Twitter just gave the Clinic’s Wellness Institute free publicity – congratulations.

Were I the Healthcare Czar I’d throw wellness programs into the Potomac, but I’m not the Czar, and there are no Czars in the U.S. who can tell a hospital not to offer aromatherapy. Will the Clinic lose credibility for employing a physician with anti-vax views? I doubt it. The rich oil sheikhs from the Gulf countries couldn’t care less about a doctor in charge of aromatherapy with crank theories about immunizations. Just because something bothers the medical commenteriat, doesn’t mean it bothers patients.

To save science, you need skepticism. To save skepticism, you must tolerate stupidity. But there are other lessons. Vaccination phobia is the perfect storm of paranoia. We’re conquering hype. We’re not doing too well with paranoia. Evidence and science won’t reduce paranoia. It is the culture which begets paranoia which should be addressed. Perhaps we should think twice before we demonize, whether it be doctors, industry, regulators, lawyers, insurers, government, or markets, as we can so easily excessively and irreparably demonize.

The lesson I’ve drawn from conspiracy and non-conspiracy theorists is that crank can coexist with competence and competence can coexist with stupidity. May be if we treated the antivaxxers with a smidge of respect they might, just might, get over their vaccination phobia.

About the Author

Saurabh Jha is a radiologist and a contributing editor to THCB who can be reached on Twitter @RogueRad. He is up to date with all his immunizations, including Japanese B Encephalitis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "Should Cleveland Clinic’s Anti-Vax Physician Lose His Medical License?"


Member
rosskoppel
Jan 11, 2017

Very good article. We should add an analysis of the number of children harmed/killed b/c of these antivax fanatics Include also the cost to society of unnecessary care, lost income etc. That an MD at the Cleveland Clinic would be involved is tragic.

John I’s comments about the useless wellness clinics is also essential. It’s one thing for some folks to sit under crystals, it’s another for the tax base, the insurance system, and the govt to support this. Stephen Soumerai (Harvard) and I have written about the lousy data supporting these wellness programs and their incentives/punishments/intimidation forced on workers with some of these programs.

Member
Jan 11, 2017

Great article. By the way, this Einstein is still listed as a “Cleveland Clinic Wellness Expert” on their website. https://theysaidwhat.net/2017/01/11/cleveland-clinic-wellness-rant-breaks-the-record-for-stupidity/

Member
Tom Emerick
Jan 11, 2017

Hmmm. Interesting article. Some strange utterances are coming from the Cleveland Clinic these days.

Member
Jan 11, 2017

I think immunizations shouldn’t be provided by primary care providers if patients or doctors are in legal jeopardy for noncompliance. This is clearly a matter for the police, the FBI, the CIA, or the Gestapo.

Member
Brad F
Jan 10, 2017

“There’s no formalized framework for what’s legitimate skepticism of standard of care”

You sure? Would a court agree if there was a breach in what was alleged to be a SOC practice and harm resulted? From case law, formalized definitions must exist.

Is it a post hoc issue if you apprehend ante hoc negative externalities will potentially result from your practice? Few interventions carry that baggage.

Member
pjnelson
Jan 10, 2017

A truly, “poignant stream of thought” piece. I like the implication, viz., sub-specialty based institution offering Primary Healthcare. The Pediatrics folks are pretty rigid about professional standards regarding immunization practices. I always thought that it was odd that the first Hospital to require flu shots for ALL employees was in California, and it was a Pediatric Hospital. The hospital apparently spent a couple of years in court about employment rights. The employees and their attorneys LOST all their lawsuits. That legal action may have set the precedent for the employment issue. Its now the standard for all hospitals, at least in Omaha.

I liken LARGE medical centers and Primary Healthcare to the energy industry. Fossil Fuel dominated power companies rarely do a good job managing nuclear energy. Both statements about an industry quality as an institutional oxymoron. A Primary Healthcare clinic will never function well when managed as a step-child of the transplant program, etc.

Admin
Jan 10, 2017

The Cleveland Clinic ought to immediately launch a campaign to promote the safety, efficacy and need for vaccination. The harm done by their wellness director in touting anti-vaccination gobbledygook is enormous and will not be repaired by disciplining the doctor responsible.

Member
pjnelson
Jan 11, 2017

I agree. I wonder if he was alive during the last Measles epidemic in the mid-1960s. Stuck in traffic while living in a city of 1 million, do we refuse to honor the next stop light because it increases our inhalation of carbon monoxide? The risks to our health are probably worse from the carbon monoxide than compliance with an immunization program. Also, we don’t improve the ‘common good’ by refusing most immunizations. We all, mostly all, still stop at the red light.

Member
Tom Emerick
Jan 11, 2017

Good point.

Admin
Jan 10, 2017

Agree with Saurabh’s take here —

This story raises interesting questions about how we do medicine + science

But not sure the real story is not about firing doctors or protecting their freedom of speech

The real story is should the Cleveland Clinic – or any other leading academic medical center for that matter – be doing wellness at all?

And if so, under what conditions?

Member
William Palmer MD
Jan 10, 2017

I like to be paranoid because it explains my down days or when I forgot my keys or my partial. Worrying about muons is always the easiest. These are heavy electrons that zing through us whenever cosmic rays have fooled above us. They can go through 400 feet of bone and enamel like a hot knife through butter. As a backup, I worry about electrmagnetic fields shaking my electrons. And the worst is when they shake electrons into a higher orbit. Obscene. All these ATT and Verizon phone towers are the real culprits….and the WiFi. Leave our leptons and bosons and fermions alone! Real health care should always take place deep underground or surrounded by lead.

Member
Perry
Jan 11, 2017

This is precisely why I always wear tinfoil under my hat.