CDC Turns the Spotlight on Measles
CDC REPORT
WHY WHY WHY do we always have this same damned conversation? Anti-vaccinators BAD, vaccinators GOOD.
Vaccination is obviously very important. Obviously, there is a percentage of the population (and growing larger every day) who will not do it.
The question is why won't they do it, and what can be done that they will do it? If this question is not addressed in a meaningful manner the people who won't vaccinate will become legion (if they are not already).
And everybody knows, "you/your child/somebody else's child could die" argument is obviously not working. And saying "jail them" makes you sound like a dick. Nobody likes being told what to do, most of all by a nameless, faceless authority let alone a blog commenter.
There is a tidal wave of distrust toward western medicine and big pharma, and quite frankly they brought it on themselves.
Read the article BOINGBOING/This is what happens when we don't vaccinate
<>
Even the article excerpt here points out that 11% of the cases were in vaccinated people (well, it points out that 89% were in unvaccinated people, but still). As pointed out earlier in this very thread, no vaccine is 100% effective, and the measles vaccine in particular is around 90% effective.
So, let's distinguish between unvaccinated people, and people who are vulnerable to the disease.
People who are vulnerable consist of close to 100% of unvaccinated people, plus about 10% of vaccinated people.
So, by not vaccinating, a person basically decides to give themselves a 90% chance of contracting measles from, and of passing it along to, not only other unvaccinated people, but also 10% of those who are vaccinated.
I've seen the figure that gives a 90% chance of a non-immune person contracting measles from an infectious person with whom they live. That doesn't mean the chance of contracting it from shorter contact is zero, and you can't just discount all those other contacts - it would be somewhat less for someone you work or attend school with all day, less again from someone whose table you wait on or who waits on your table in a restaurant, less again from someone you sit near on a bus once, some very small but still non-zero chance from someone who had out a library book before you did...
Read the article BOINGBOING/This is what happens when we don't vaccinate
<>
Some people, like myself, do not immunize their children for religious reasons. And this is a decision my spouse and I did not come to lightly. I thoroughly researched the vaccines, even through the manufacturer's own websites. I researched the ingredients, possible side effects, and sought information from all channels - including the department of health as well as anti-immunization organizations. I gathered all credible information, and then went to scripture and prayer. For us there was clear reason not to immunize or children, but I understand not all will come to this decision.
I just ask one thing of those choosing TO immunize, please don't assume that I'm either ignorant or stupid to make this decision. We are also not brainwashed, we are the only family that's made this choice at our church and both of us were raised receiving all our immunizations on schedule. We understand the risks, and if those of you who immunize are sure that immunizations work so well - then why are you worried that my child will infect yours? Just something to think about, that's all.
Oh and before we get all worked up, 118 cases is only 0.00003% of people in the US. And 5,000 cases in Europe is only 0.0006% of the population there. Just some perspective...
Read the articleHUFFINGTON POST/U.S. Measles Outbreak Sees Cases At 15-Year High: What Should You Do?
<>
From John Helperin's, Associated Press article – Apr 21--"To prevent measles
outbreaks, officials need to vaccinate about 90 percent of the population. But
vaccination rates across Europe have been patchy in recent years and have never
fully recovered from a discredited 1998 British study linking the vaccine for
measles, mumps and rubella to autism. Parents abandoned the vaccine in droves
and vaccination rates for parts of the U.K. dropped to about 50
percent."
Measles is coming to the US. Children who were never
vaccinated, and adults who have not had boosters are vulnerable. Last fall in CA
there were historically high rates of whooping cough. At least ten newborns died
from this entirely preventable disease. The babies who died were too young to be
vaccinated, but if the older children and adults around them had been
vaccinated, they would not have been exposed.
Read the article NPR/U.S. measles cases hit 15-year high
<>
It's true that most children who get measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) are sick
for a few days, then recover and are fine. Those of us who were born before 1956
don't have to get the shots because we had the three diseases as kids. In fact,
when my mom heard that kids in the neighborhood had one of them, she'd send us
over to play so we'd catch it and get it over with! The trouble is, a small
percentage of people get complications and even die. My own kids get every
immunization recommended by our pediatrician.
Read the article NPR/U.S. measles cases hit 15-year high
Six Cups of Coffee A Day May Reduce Mens' Prostate Cancer Risk
In response to those who complain when they see seemingly contradictory results: we scientists share your frustration, but perhaps see things a bit differently. Caffeine has been reported to have some anti-cancer properties, but in this case it wasn't the caffeine (since decaffeinated coffee also produced a benefit) that produced the benefit. Further, drinking coffee has been shown to INCREASE risk of Breast cancer, and there is some animal evidence that direct application of caffeine can increase the number of mutations caused by UV stimulation.
What is one to think? Well, the first thing is to note that science is rarely as neat and tidy as one would like it. The second thing to note is that it is entirely possible that caffeine has both cancer causing and cancer reducing properties. Such things are not uncommon in biology. Dose is an obvious example: Low doses of Warfarin can be beneficial for certain cardiovascular conditions, yet high doses are lethal. There are countless examples of this. But I doubt dose is the issue with coffee and caffeine.
There are numerous examples of biological mechanisms that can be both harmful and helpful in cancer and we really don't understand why. One likely reason is that we're looking at these systems in isolation, but they don't operate that way in the body: the helpful system under study may only become dangerous when some other system is altered (say, through mutation). Biology is complex and only partially understood and seemingly contradictory results are often important our most important clues into how some critical process works.
So, I understand your frustration, but really we need to look at such findings as part of a large process for humankind to understand the very fundamental secrets of life
Read the article .CBC/High coffee intake tied to lower prostate cancer risk
<>
Drinking large amounts of coffee, like six cups a day, has adverse effects in other areas. Coffee increases excretion of stomach acids and it reduces the effect of prostaglandins, which are required to maintain the stomach lining. So, you reduce the chances of a certain type of prostate cancer and increase your chances of stomach disorders, which might include stomach cancer.
I have not provided links due to a shortage of time, but many articles are available through Google.
I recently became aware of a problem with an aspirin a day to prevent blood clots, one of the dangers with heart attacks. It appears aspirin has the same effect on prostaglandins, and taking too much aspirin thins the stomach lining, leaving it even more vulnerable to the acid in aspirin.
I have gone back to vitamin E, which Canadian doctor Wilfrid Shute claimed acted as a natural anti-thrombin. That is, E is supposed to make blood platelets slippier, reducing the chances of blood clots. A recent study suggested E is dangerous, but it was a statistical analysis that ran completely against the findings of many studies that have found 400 to 800 IU of E a day reduces heart attacks significantly.
One other side effect of an aspirin a day...constipation. I have never experienced constipation chronically in my life, but after a year of an aspirin a day, I became so constipated it became alarming. A week after stopping daily aspirin, the constipation disappeared.
With the proliferation of information these days, a person has to be careful to read both sides of an argument. This article is about prostate cancer, and a doctor in California has claimed the PSA test used to detect prostate cancer is unreliable. He suggested it may be setting people up for surgery that is not required.
Read the article .CBC/High coffee intake tied to lower prostate cancer risk
<>
Rather than live by the advice of doctors and scientist who provide conflicting information, I follow the examples of my grandmothers (both 80 years old and still active), great grandmothers (died in their 90s), and great, great aunt (still alive at 96). They never ate pre-packaged or fast food meals. Everything was homemade and they always included home grown vegetables in their diet. They always drank or still drink coffee every morning, and rarely drank soda. They always had at least 3 meals a day. And they get regular sleep.
Ironically, they all outlived their doctors.
Read the article MSNBC/Swilling coffee may protect men against prostate cancer
<>
The main issue with this epidemiology approach to the scientific method is not just the lack of causality. ie, that because you see heavy coffee drinkers and you see no prostrate cancer, therefore, coffee prevents it. This is wrong already because it's like saying "every time I see cows, I see a barn, so cows made barns." (or the other way round). This isn't science, it's letting the statistics do the thinking. There may be, for example, correlation between people who end up drinking that much coffee from other factors. It's questionable how coffee was zeroed out. So, that's bad science to start.
The even larger issue, though, even if we think the correlation is potentially meaningful, is the assumption on this being so based on the 60% reduction, the conclusion leads to "it helps *everyone* who drinks coffee... and drinking coffee is therefore good for you!" That's not the right conclusion -- coffee did not help some of the people in the study at all. Worst, there is definitely nothing that says drinking that much coffee doesn't produce other issues. The 1st part is like saying 60% of the odd numbers between 1-19 are prime, so all odd numbers should be considered prime, and the 2nd part is saying letting out blood would reduce fever so you should bleed to stay healthy.
We have come so far into the 21st century with so many tools to study about the issues we have, and we apply logic and statistical analysis that has barely improved since the 19th century! "prospective" indeed... *sigh*
Read the article MSNBC/Swilling coffee may protect men against prostate cancer
<>
Why are people talking in such absolutes? The research indicates that coffee may lower the risk of diagnosis, not totally prevent it from happening. It is like saying exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease, but by no means does that prevent it, either. Be careful of where you place cause and effect because disease diagnoses are going to be from a combination of many factors, each one playing a small part in lowering or raising health risk. Even if you can't ever 100% guarantee prevention, you might as well take steps to help lower the risk, and that's all you can do.
Read the article MSNBC/Swilling coffee may protect men against prostate cancer
Priceless... The Man with the New Face
BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL
Wow! Such an incredible little one who loves her daddy. It didn't matter to her what he looks like, what matters is the love she has for him. She could teach us an important lesson in life about acceptance, tolerance, sharing and most of all, love for another person regardless of physical appearances and limitations.
You brought tears to my eyes, little lady, but they are tears of joy and happiness for you, little one, and your daddy. I hope your daddy will be around for many more years to come. :) Bless you Dallas & your little lady.
Read the article BOSTON GLOBE/Transplant recipient 'amazed' at his new face
<>
I think it's quite impressive results for something early in the stages of being developed. Congratulations to the entire surgical team for their work and effort to give this man his life back. Granted he's not the same, nor will he ever be, but what has been provided with is tremendous step forward.
Most important congratulations to Dallas for being strong enough to push forward in life, despite having endured such a life-altering, physical deformity. The strength he's demonstrated thus far and will likely continue to, exceeds that of many a human being, including myself..
Read the article BOSTON HERALD/"Daddy, You're so handsome"
<>
The story and video were quite ciomplete in stating the reasons for the
transplant procedure. You apparently skimmed through the article and failed to
watch the video. Pay particular attention to who provided the funding for the
surgery. The entire transplant procedure, begininng with the selection of a
suitable donor face along with the musculature, nerves, fascia - even a nose and
mouth that allows him a sense of smell -
improve the quality not only of his
life, but for many of our soldiers returning from combat with head and musculo-
skeletal injuries.
The high voltage line he came in contact with most
likely carried 7200 - 9000 volts AC. I was caught in a 277vac circuit hand to
hand for 30+ seconds a few years back. There were 3 skin graft surgeries
required.
8 years later, the scars have faded and smoothed and I still work
as an electrician who is lucky to be alive.
Now, look at the voltage
differences between his accident and mine. Think about the difference between
scarred hands and having no face, no eyes, no skin, no nose, no lips to close
that would allow one to keep food in their mouth as they eat. EVERYTHING was
burned away.
If you have read the news occassionally over the past 15
years, you'd understand that this is not as new and 'groundbreaking' as you
think. You may not agree, but I'd say that this man has borne the risks well as
has his family - particularly his little daughter.
Read the article USA TODAY/Texas man shows off his full face transplant
When my mother died many years ago, she donated her eyes for transplants. We
were then notified that a grateful recipient could now see for the first time,
which truly helped to assuage her loss. Please - those of you who have not
already signed up to be a donor - please reconsider. You won't use those organs
after your death - why not share priceless things you no longer need?
Read the article NPR/First full face transplant recipient in U.S. is returning home
<>
Here I am sitting, complaining that I am not making enough money... and this man just wants to smell a rose, or to feel his daughter's kiss. I am just going to kiss my children, go out to smell flowers in my yard, and aplogize to the Lord for not appreciating His gifts...
Read the article CNN/Face transplant patient ready to go home
<>
Outward appearance does not define the inner person. The love of this child defines true love. Even at his worst point, she never failed to see through his horrific disfighrement and find within the outward scars--her hero, her father.
Read the article CNN/Face transplant patient ready to go home
Dallas I purely understand when you say bitter...how folks would stare while you
go shopping..I had that same problem and was in a near-fatal car wreck that left
me traumatized and scarred for life..
I hardly feel my forehead still since
1992..It's just a tingle feeling..kinda numb. I used to get so snappy at folks
when they would stare at me while I would shop for clothes..I had no friends
except some neighborhood kids who knew me before the wreck.
It is a tough life
but so glad you got that transformation so you could feel those kisses...It will
take a while but you will get your life back in whole..You got your life but will
take a long time to recover mentally...for me anyways. So happy for you and God
bless brother!!
Read the article ABC NEWS/ Dallas Wiens Reunites With Daughter After Full Face Transplant
Caution on CT Scans for Kids' Head Trauma
My 11-year- old daughter had a CT scan last year, and I don't regret it. I am very
aware of the risks from radiation exposure and insist, for instance, that the
dentist doesn't do X-rays routinely...only if absolutely necessary (and it
hasn't been since they had their base-line X-rays done years ago).
However, my
daughter's case was one in which symptoms were present (she vomitted soon after
the injury and was groggy). The Dr. agreed that a CT scan was a good idea, all
things considered.
The results showed a possible minor concussion, but nothing
serious. I took her home and watched her for 24 hours. But I'd do the procedure
again in the same circumstances...you don't mess around with possible bleeding
on the brain. It can kill you quietly and quickly.
Read the article ABC NEWS/Panicked Parents Demand CT Scans for Kids, But Waiting Is Often Best, Study
Finds
<>
The practice of medicine is a losing game. After 25 years in the emergency department I have to admit I'd never encourage anyone to pursue it.
On one hand we don't want to expose patients (especially a young, rapidly developing body) to ionizing radiation; on the other, we have to deal with emotional, medically untrained, litigious parents who demand a head CT.
Lastly we have to contend with hospital administrators who invariable lean in the direction of the "customer" (they don't call them patients anymore).
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/Half of children unnecessarily receiving scans for head injuries
<>
As alluded to by other
contributors this issue is driven by litigation. It is impossible to
link a tiny additional radiation dose early in life to a specific case of cancer as an adult. But if a child's injury is missed because a CT scan is not completed massive compensation, management criticism and media approbation results.
As a young doctor (and most of these
decisions are taken by young doctors) what choice would you make?We are now in an era
driven by the perceived threat of litigation where risk generally is
avoided and any accident to a young person is dissected by courts
and media, whilst at the same time the adults responsible for taking
the risk are left to 'hang out to dry' by their management.
Read the article DAILY TELEGRAPH/Half of children unnecessarily receiving scans for head injuries
<>
I was called by the daycare a couple years ago that my 3 yr old son was crying
and complaining of a headache. He was telling them he had hit his head, although
no teachers witnessed it. Because he seemed so miserable, I went there and
picked him up and shortly thereafter he started vomiting. He had no outward
signs of any head trauma (no bruises, bumps), but because he said he had hit his
head and he was vomiting, the doctor ordered a CT scan and thankfully all was
fine. I don't regret having the scan done, because in that case, I felt the
benefits outweighed the risks.
A few months ago, my 1 year old daughter fell
down a flight of unfinished steps and immediately formed a huge purple lump on
her forehead. My husband was right next to her and tried to catch her but it all
was too quick. We took her in because the bump looked so terrible, but she was
otherwise acting normal. The doctor gave us the option of the CT scan but told
us he would recommend we watch her closely for the next 24 hours instead (he
cited the same risks this article states). In that case the benefits did not
seem to outweigh the risks, so we chose to not do the scan, and I'm again happy
with the decision we made. She had a nasty looking bruise for quite awhile, but
was otherwise fine.
Read the article ABC NEWS/Panicked Parents Demand CT Scans for Kids, But Waiting Is Often Best, Study
Finds
Asthma Rates Keep Rising in the United States
In the most significant breakthrough in 40 years of asthma research it was
discovered that vitamin D deficiency is directly related to severity and
incidence of the disease.
In particular, children with dark skin are
especially susceptible to asthma when their circulating vitamin D is severely
deficient.
If you or your children suffer asthma or severe allergies
research vitamin D deficiency. The sad reality is that doctors are almost
clueless about the connection.
It was found that children were able to
reduce steroid drug use by up to 90% with even practically meaningless amounts
of vitamin D supplementation.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Asthma rates climb for children, adults
<>
I am 54 years old and learned I had asthma for the first time when I went into
the ER in a warm June night two years ago with night coughs and wheezing.
Never
had asthma when I was a child nor anyone in my family. Mine is allergy induced
(grass pollen, cat dander and dust mites) and I am seeing an allergist for which
after 7 months of allergy shot, seems to be doing the job. In my case, I started
to have increased allergy symptoms about 6 years ago peaking close to the flu
seasons for which I started to take flu medications and Claritin (loratidine)
and whatever else my GP prescribed.
In my case where I live we receive a fine
dust from sandstorms (Saharan) during the summer causing haze and most people
react whenever the haze is most intense. Most of the southern parts of the US
(Florida-Gulf Coast) receive this dry aerosol dust commonly known as the Saharan
Air Layer.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Asthma rates climb for children, adults
<>
Even with health care Asthma meds are expensive. Both of my boys have severe Asthma and take Singular ($50 a piece), Albuterol, one takes Flovent and the other takes Advair.
Every time I buy meds, I know I'm going to be at least $200 a month out of pocket. It's insane. If their intent is to promote taking care of asthma symptoms, they really need to somehow make it easier on those of us that have to spend so much on meds.
Read the article CNN/Asthma cases up in the U.S.
<>
This discussion has provided many reasons for asthma triggers. If we look at this from another angle, is it the number of people who suffer from asthma increasing, or is it the general category of asthma that more and more symptoms are being classed as Asthma attacks can be a symptom of another issue, such as food allergy. Is the patient then diagnosed with asthma, therefore adding to the count?
I believe the increase is due to more issues being lumped into the asthma category. The purpose is found within the article itself "Encourage doctors to prescribe inhaled corticosteroids for all patients with persistent asthma". FYI – both parents lost to COPD, I have COPD, daughter has acute asthma, all six grandkids were diagnosed as asthmatics.
Read the article CNN/Asthma cases up in the U.S.
<>
My asthma is triggered by artificial scents – and those have been on the increase in the last decade. For some reason the manufacturers think they need to add an artificial scent to everything.
Think of the stuff sitting under your kitchen sink, your bathroom sink, the stuff they spray in your car when it's washed, the stuff you use when you mop your floors, and creams you smear on face and hands. When I talk to other people about my problems with artificial scents, I find there are an increasing number of people who have the same problem.
And then there is the issue of immune systems becoming "compromised" due to all the "anti bacterial" cleaners being used. I think it is still true that kids in farms/ranches and in households with pets get less asthma than kids who don't get to be exposed to "dirt".
Read the article CNN/Asthma cases up in the U.S.
An Apple a Day Really Does Keep the Doctor Away
*An apple a day In the chemically grown environment will bring the doctor
into play!
*An organic apple a day will keep the doctor away!
I agree that an apple a day keeps the doctor away but only if the apple is
organic. Apples are consistently named as one of the most pesticide-contaminated
fruits and vegetables because they are more popular than most the other fruits
and vegetables. Choosing organic apples can therefore make a big difference
...
Even if the study referred to in this article shows that apples made a
difference (maybe the apples were organic?), but I don't think so because then
the journalist would have made a point out of it, we don't know how eating a lot
of non-organic apples will affect the body over time. Preservatives, residues
from pesticides, fungicides, synthetic growth and breeding hormones are harmful
for our body and may damage our liver and even cause Cancer. Not to mention what
all these substances do to Mother Earth.
My advise! - Eat apples and all other fruits and vegetables but try to pick
organic products when possible. Your body and Mother Earth will thank you - and
your kids too!
Happy Natural Life!
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/Eating apples every day really IS good for your health, scientists say
<>
Modern apples are a far cry from anything "natural" that has ever existed, so
first let's let go of the myth that somehow they're good because they're
"natural". Apples don't breed true, so every apple you've ever gotten in the
supermarket is thanks to grafting and cloning of trees -> something that has
only existed for a short while of human existence.
Second, the real problem with chronic disease isn't a dearth of apples, it's
an excess of carbohydrate. Apples don't help all that much (fructose heading
straight to your liver for processing), although if you're at least not eating
dried apples, it's mostly water so it's not too bad for you. Apple juice, on
the other hand, is a boatload of bad for you.
So if you care about your health, and want to avoid bad cholesterol, obesity,
diabetes and other chronic diseases, avoid foods that will spike your insulin
levels by raising your blood sugar.
Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.
Read the article LOS ANGELES TIMES/Eating apples every day really IS good for your health, scientists say
<>
It is said it is because an apple has a relatively low GI. The sugar is released and absorbed reasonably slowly as it is contained within fibre of the fruit. That, with the naturally filling effect of the fibre content, would appear to stave off undue pangs of hunger, leading to a reduction in snack eating from the sugar lows normally associated with refined sugar intake, and so promote some weight loss in that way.
A number of other studies are in agreement that the apple consumption has a wide range of beneficial health effects. It is unlikely that anyone is capable of eating enough raw apple to make the amount of sugar ingested enough to offset the other benefits of consuming the fruit.
In terms of alcoholic drinks, cider is probably the healthiest of all to consume in moderate quantities as a tonic.
Read the article TELEGRAPH/Apple a day does keep the doctor away
<>
It shouldn't be surprising that apples, if not a miracle food, at least form part of a healthy diet. The saying comes from centuries of observation.
Since healthism/health fascism/health obsession and neurosis began about ten years ago, nothing has been added to what we already knew. In many ways things have got worse. For several years I stopped eating eggs and took high dose vitamin E capsules.
Your grandmother's summary: don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat some of everything and get a good night's sleep and plenty of fresh air and exercise, needs no modification.
Read the article TELEGRAPH/Apple a day does keep the doctor away
READ MORE BEST COMMENTS ON HEALTH & EDUCATION: APRIL 2011
School's Ban on Homemade Lunches Gets Parents Simmering APRIL 2011
Is Hard Work Driving You to an Early Grave? APRIL 2011
Are Artificial Food Dyes a Real Problem for Kids? APRIL 2011
Holy Rolls! Study Suggests Link Between Churchgoers and Obesity
APRIL 2011
