Reddit mentions: The best epidemiology books

> socialism already has democratic elements built into the system.

Not necessarily, example USSR. This video touches on the delineation well enough.

>there weren't as many corporate subsidies that would have ravaged our revenue

I could not possibly agree with you more.


As for programs medicaid, let's acknowledge that it is a poor indicator of how single payer healthcare would function in our society. The redundancy of departments mixed with required paperwork/administration (thus ensuing systemic inefficiency), inability to negotiate price with pharmaceutical companies, and the endless pitfalls of profit motive in warping ethical decision making create an environment where healthcare is senselessly expensive and inefficent. Free market profit motives cannot be trusted to fix our healthcare issues. A government body, for better or worse, is the only institution of sufficient size and importance that is able to offer us an ability to manage population level health care properly.

Not to mention the increased public health benefits gained by a society through providing basic human health care are undeniable (in terms of pocketbook as well as basic safety in our future. I can't recommend Paul Farmer's "Infections and Inequality" highly enough to learn more about the ever growing importance of public health and safety and its relation to economics).

I'm not saying current programs are adequately functional to serve their intended purpose, in fact quite the opposite. I don't believe it wise to dismiss the goal of universal health care or the benefits of social welfare programs in principle because we don't currently achieve perfection. Saying 'we tried these programs, and they just don't work, you end up with too many takers' is illogical.

Fundamentally, I think what might separate us in our ways of thinking is the level of trust we are willing to put into the free market to optimally work out our problems (socially, politically, economically, etc.)

Whoa, there. Healthcare data scientist here, mainly working in areas like clinical epidemiology and with a background in health services research and pharmacoepidemiology.

First, kudos for having questions and reaching out for help. This is my opinion, but health care is different from other sectors. The work you do has the potential to affect people in visceral, fundamentally life-changing ways...such as recommending a patient should or should not get treatment. Or a patient should or should not be placed on end-of-life-care...that a life-threatening complication is or is not related to a pharmaceutical on the market. Point just being - I think this sector carries responsibility that many other sectors don't.

Second, are you at a pharmaceutical/related organization? If so, there should be qualified biostatisticians/epidemiologists/psychometricians/health economist/something similar to sit down with you and help you figure you this out.

Third, you said you study 'data science and knowledge engineering', but I'm not sure what your curriculum consists of - do you study causal inference? If you don't, it's the most important topic you need to be familiar with (not competent, mind you). Here are several references that could get you familiar with identifying and dealing with bias and confounding, and designing experiments to assess causal relationships instead of just association. In healthcare you have to know when a question warrants a causal analysis vs a predictive or associative one. If a causal analysis is needed, an epidemiologist or biostatistician might likely do that work, but it certainly helps to know what a DAG is and how to read one.

https://www.amazon.com/Epidemiology-Introduction-Kenneth-J-Rothman/dp/0199754551

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/miguel-hernan/causal-inference-book/

Fourth, I'm hesitant to suggest anything about your dataset, because I still only have a rough idea of the details. Also, it sounds like you've got a psychometric dataset, and I've never studied psychometrics. I will say, though, that the question (hypothesis) being asked should really drive the analytic approach. Is the goal to look at a homogenous population and find that there's something about that causing them to require or be adherent to treatment? Do those results then need to get applied to a diverse, heterogenous population? That's a very high bar to achieve for experimental purposes. Is it enough to look at some data and say that certain characteristics are associated or predictive of certain outcomes? That's a much lower bar from an experimental standpoint and probably an analytic standpoint, too. If there is a selection bias, I think that's only relevant if there's a desire to extrapolate the study results to a different population. As you point out, if the desire is to generalize results to a larger population it's likely a significant problem that would require a intentional experimental design to address. If the company you're working with doesn't recognize this or can't have a qualified person explain why it's not a study design problem, you're working with bad people that likely don't know what they're doing. I've colloborated with several software/'health analytic' companies and startups that are like this, and it's why I'm dis-trustful of all health analytic software until proven.

Hope this helps!

​

Shameless self-promotion, but the Ebola primer I linked above has a LOT of resources linked. Perhaps the best and most comprehensive work on the matter is the Mühlheimer-Hensley-Towner book (2017) – pricey, but worth every penny and very informative. From a more popular perspective, David Quammen’s Ebola is a great read – it’s a chapter from his bigger opus, Spillover, excerpted and updated for the epidemic. Abdullah and Rashid’s book Ebola is interesting from an international aid and cooperation perspective. Finally, as a basis of comparison, Peter Piot’s autobiography, written well before Ebola was really understood, is worth reading.

There's a good book by Kenneth Rothman (one of the top epidemiologists in the world) that would be a good intro into study design and how to interpret findings. Epi folks often called it the 'Baby Rothman' because he's also written (arguably) the top text in epidemiology as well. The two books work well in tandem as well.

Edit: Just to add, the FDA and AHRQ put out pretty good guidance documents as well that explain the nuances of trials, observational research, etc. I actually used them a fair bit when I was studying for my comprehensive exams. If you're interested, I can fish out the links.

I recommend [Beating Back the Devil] (http://www.amazon.com/Beating-Back-Devil-Maryn-McKenna/dp/1439123101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450903258&sr=8-1&keywords=beating+back+the+devil) to learn about the CDC's Epidemic Intelligence Service. It was SO interesting, and you learn a lot about one of the more exciting jobs in public health. I'm in epi but I definitely don't have it in me to travel around the world fighting disease. But even if you're a homebody like me, I would still recommend it just because it's a great read.

Both posts above are great advice. You have a short amount of time to accomplish as much as possible, and practical experience is invaluable if you want to be competitive in the job market. I'm in a 2-year MPH program (in Epi), and finished all the required coursework in a year and a half taking 5 classes. The workload hasn't been too bad, and having a part-time job on the side shouldn't be too much of a problem (except maybe around midterms/finals, obviously).

A friend of mine who was already in the MPH program recommended reading this book before I started, and it helped get comfortable with Epi, so I didn't feel like I was plunged into a whole new world when classes began: http://www.amazon.com/Epidemiology-Introduction-Kenneth-J-Rothman/dp/0199754551/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I'm a medical anthropology Ph.D student studying/interested in infectious diseases. Let me try to explain.

It's not so much that educating people about biomedicine is not going to work, more that the education is not being done in a good way. Weird people walking in trying to get them to completely disregard their long, LONG standing beliefs for this new form of "witchcraft" that is completely counter-intuitive is never going to work; this is a cliche, but imagine if the tables were turned and they came here to help us fight an epidemic and insisted germs weren't real and that it was sorcery that was the issue (I know, not a perfect analogy because of one of the systems of knowledge is "scientifically correct" and the other isn't). But, your solution of coming up with brand new magic to incorporate into their beliefs wouldn't help either, because it's not a deeply-ingrained belief. These people have been living with these belief systems for thousands of years. Every part of what they believe about health is interrelated with what they believe about God, relationships with each other and nature, etc. Every part of knowledge is connected with every of type of knowledge. So to run in and say, "Here are your new magic beliefs on health," would never work, because the new beliefs wouldn't be compatible with the rest of their beliefs.

What actually needs to happen is finding a way to make biomedical knowledge compatible with their traditional knowledge. Think of it kind of like how the Christians "got" pagans by turning their old holidays into new Christian holidays. This is why anthropologists (think "cultural brokers") are so sorely needed in situations like this--and the CDC and WHO know this and are hiring/consulting with medical anthropologists...but it should be done before disasters happen, because, like everything, it takes time.

This is rather stream of consciousness so it might not make sense, but it's all I can crank out for now.

Edit: For the people who are interested in medical anthro, I'd suggest reading Stranger in the Village of the Sick by Paul Stoller, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman, and especially Inequalities and Infections by Paul Farmer.

So that they can be seamlessly rolled into the services if the need arises. For instance, elements of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (part of the Center for Disease Control and US Public Health Service) were inserted into the command structure for the DOD response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa a few years ago. the NOAA commissioned corps has a wartime mission supporting the Navy.

If you had never heard about EIS here is a great book on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Beating-Back-Devil-Maryn-McKenna/dp/1439123101

Not accepting older editions!

$5CAD each Upping my offer for Epidemiology to $10USD paypal

Looking for:

[PENDING] PATTEN: EPIDEMIOLOGY FOR CANADIAN STUDENTS 2ND ED - $10USD

A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving, 4th Edition - $4USD OBO.

BANASIK: PATHOPHYSIOLOGY 6TH ED

LILLY: PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF HEART DISEASE 6TH

Ok so a couple things.

Thing the first- I honestly thought you wuz le trollin.

Thing the the second- i finished work at 5 am, was in bed for 6 then was woken up my renovators 2.5 hours later. Totally underestimated the loudness level that would ensue.

Thing the third- I'm super passionate and that combined with my grumpy, hate on for fear mongering trolls, oh and my general laziness to cite things... I kinda went the venom route which I shouldn't have.. Its also something I'm working on as a personal issue. I read how to win friend and influence people once a year as a personal tune up.

If you'd like to get your whistle wet on a general overview of the CDC and EIS,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005OHV30U?pc_redir=1407139778&robot_redir=1

It got my brain going on consipracy culture (lots of things in that book would have been conspiracies... But they was real!) as well as epidemiology.

Highly suggest this, and the "hot zone" which is based on a real life ebola outbreak in Washington due to monkey smuggling.

> Mountains Beyond Mountains

Paul Farmer is a fantastic human being. If you want to read some of his own work, I highly recommend Infections and Inequalities.

What she does is she takes the data that Campbell originally helped gathered, and re-interprets it. The data gathered in this observational study is in itself is great. Campbells presentation of it in The China Study shows a clear bias, however.

So Campbell wrote a book(really it's just a chapter) on his interpretation(not peer reviewed), and Minger wrote a few blog posts about her interpretation(not peer reviewed). I'm not seeing why she needs to submit her findings as a peer reviewed paper just to refute a chapter in a book.

I just looked at that a little more carefully--still on phone, so not complete, but...

The first one is basically a letter to the FDA, not a peer-reviewed paper? From a guy/group with a clearly biased name? And then all of the other papers are from the same guy...?

And he certainly doesn't have an agenda.

I'm thinking of doing this. So far none of my textbooks have been PDFs and all of them have been optimized for e-readers. Here's an example at random.

The school is trying to sell me the books via Vitalsource Bookshelf, a proprietary e-textbook system, but I found many of the same textbooks somewhat cheaper for Kindle (and also on Google Play Books). Bookshelf isn't a terrible app but I find the Kindle app more intuitive. Plus I can rent them on Kindle! It's actually prorated to the number of weeks I need the book.

I'm reading the textbooks on my laptop (which is a bit much to lug around and with battery life of only a few hours I have to remember to charge it) or on my phone (strains the eyes, or I get distracted by Facebook etc) so I'm thinking of just going the Kindle route.

I have two recommendations. One I've read, and the other I have on my list to read--but both seem to be what you're looking for.

My recommendation: The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health by John Duffy. This book begins in colonial America and goes into the 1980s. Its strength is in the historical analysis of the American hygiene movement.

On my reading list: A History of Public Health by George Rosen. Johns Hopkins publishes this and they seem to keep it in print by coming out with an update every few years with some extra content. This was first written in the late 1950s. It starts with a history from Greek and Roman times, and then summarizes various epochs: 500-1500, 1500-1750, 1750-1830, 1830-1875, and 1875-1950.

I don't disagree with you. There's something really wrong going on at the CDC, especially in their policy department. The main point that I want to make, though, is that there is a lot of extremely noxious vitriol currently directed at the CDC. While I agree that some criticism is warranted, fear and distrust of the organization may end up being extremely counterproductive in the long run. Much of their good work goes unnoticed in the media. If you have a moment, take the time to read Beating Back the Devil by Maryn McKenna on the CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service -- they do truly heroic work.

Excellent book on Kuru.. prions and cannibalism..

don't know if this was posted previously, but I don't have three days to read all the comments. Sorry.

http://www.amazon.com/Kuru-Sorcery-Disease-Danger-Highlands-ebook/dp/B018W7RJKG/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

CDC Yellow Book 2018: Health Information for International Travel

Workbook of Epidemiology (Norrell): https://www.amazon.com/Workbook-Epidemiology-Staffan-Norell/dp/0195074912/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518227129&sr=1-1&keywords=workbook+for+epidemiology

Interpreting Epidemiologic Evidence (Savitz): https://www.amazon.com/Interpreting-Epidemiologic-Evidence-Strategies-Analysis/dp/019510840X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518227195&sr=1-2&keywords=interpreting+epidemiologic+evidence

Epidemiology, 5th Edition (Gordis): https://www.amazon.com/Epidemiology-STUDENT-CONSULT-Online-Access/dp/145573733X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518227238&sr=1-1&keywords=epidemiology+5th+edition+by+leon+gordis

Beyond The Basics, 3rd Edition (Szklo & Nieto): https://www.amazon.com/Epidemiology-Beyond-Basics-Moyses-Szklo/dp/1449604692/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518227273&sr=1-2&keywords=szklo+m.+and+nieto+j.+epidemiology+beyond+the+basics&dpID=515BdoQV9QL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Seconding Rothman. Dry but thorough.

Edit: this one https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Epidemiology-Kenneth-J-Rothman/dp/1451190050

Yeah, that's the one! But my Gf reads a nasty book. I might not leave her, alive. This book.

Oh shit, so I meant to add these as well, but they're the physical books which explains my forgetfulness. Apologies if not everything seems to relate but my original goal was "how did we get from slavery to where African-Americans are today as still-oppressed people?", which obviously the reason is "because white people have historically shown serious inferiority complexes n' mental issues and have been all-around assholes to everyone else" but truly history is tied into everything so, uh, yeah:

Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-1782

• Reads more like a dissertation than a book for the public, ye be warned
  
  Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present
  
• Haven't read it yet
  
  Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues
  
• Haven't read it yet
  
  
  

75 Worst Ways to Die: A Guide to the Ways in Which We Go

Snopes is not a reliable source- they have an agenda. Do your fucking research. Their stupid claim of false is strictly in terms of aspartame before it breaks down, and lawsuits in court being successful.

Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde and Methanol.

Both poisons. Both proven scientifically to be poisons. Snopes is playing a word game with you- and probably very well paid to do so.

Snopes is consistently shit with a hidden agenda, using wordplay to make claims that appear to be other than what they actually are.

however if you actually did your fucking research you would know the people at the FDA who were in charge of creating the lab results that "prove" aspartame is safe.. later quit their jobs and went to work for the corporation that makes it you DICK.

What are you are too stupid and poorly read to comprehend is that aspartame does not remain aspartame.. it breaks down into other chemicals.. and that's what causes the problem!

Skim reader.. you are one.

FDA Commissioner approved aspartame for carbonated beverages, he took a consulting position with the PR firm for G.D. Searle (maker of aspartame at the time) at $1,000/day.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/FDA-HID-RESEARCH-THAT-DAMN-by-Dr-Betty-Martini-091103-94.html

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Excitotoxins-Taste-Russell-L-Blaylock/dp/0929173252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266071087&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Aspartame-Disease-Epidemic-H-Roberts/dp/1884243177/ref=sip_rech_dp_5#reader_1884243177

I think you are inexperienced and poorly read and don't grasp how difficult it is to take a mega-corporation to court when their entire ability to do business hangs in the balance.. you need very deep pockets to achieve that.. very deep. That has nothing to do with whether the product is safe or not. High Fructose Corn Syrup is also not safe, but is used nationwide. The struggles against the tobacco industry are a prime example of how the simplest and most obvious dangerous product damaging product took millions and millions of dollars to even gain an inch of ground against them, and they still make that evil chemical concoction in tobacco called "flavorings" that has been proven time and again to be wildly hazardous and addictive.

You need to discard your nut cupping of snopes and do your research instead of letting those two ass clowns do it for you. You can use them as a list of arguments.. but that's not a final source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kgJfw699E

I reviewed the lab studies first hand when this garbage first came out on the market.. one of the damning parts of the studies that declared it safe is that they would surgically remove tumors from the animals while they were still alive.. and only count the number of tumors at time of death.. drastically distorting the numbers to their favor.

The company was called Searle back then, and it was called nutrasweet.

It didn't get any safer since then.

http://www.aspartamesafety.com/Article9.htm

remember the salient point here- aspartame is one thing.. what it breaks down into after being placed in a product- is totally different.. and aspartame always breaks down. That's the part snopes covered up.