Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

DIPHTHERIA

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Myrl - 23 Apr 2008 23:16 GMT
DIPHTHERIA

At one time, diphtheria was common in the United States. More than
200,000 cases, primarily among children, were reported in 1921.
Approximately 5%-10% of cases were fatal; the highest case-fatality
ratios were recorded for the very young and the elderly. Reported
cases of diphtheria of all types declined from 306 in 1975 to 59 in
1979; most were cutaneous diphtheria reported from a single state (3).
After 1979, cutaneous diphtheria was no longer notifiable. From 1980
to 1989, only 24 cases of respiratory diphtheria were reported; two
cases were fatal, and 18 (75%) occurred among persons greater than or
equal to 20 years of age.

Diptheria is currently a rare disease in the United States primarily
because of the high level of appropriate vaccination among children
(97% of children entering school have received greater than or equal
to three doses of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine
(DTP)) and because of an apparent reduction in the circulation of
toxigenic strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae. Most cases occur
among unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated persons. The age
distribution of recent cases and the results of serosurveys indicate
that many adults in the United States are not protected against
diphtheria. Limited serosurveys conducted since 1977 indicate that
22%-62% of adults 18-39 years of age and 41%-84% of those greater than
or equal to 60 years of age may lack protective levels of circulating
antitoxin against diphtheria (4-7). Thus, it appears that further
reductions in the incidence of diphtheria would require more emphasis
on adult immunization programs. Both toxigenic and nontoxigenic
strains of C. diphtheriae can cause disease, but only strains that
produce toxin cause myocarditis and neuritis. Furthermore, toxigenic
strains are more often associated with severe or fatal illness in
noncutaneous (respiratory or other mucosal surface) infections and are
more commonly recovered in association with respiratory than from
cutaneous infections.

C. diphtheriae can contaminate the skin, usually at the site of a
wound. Although a sharply demarcated lesion with a pseudomembranous
base often results, the appearance may not be distinctive, and
infection can be confirmed only by culture. Usually other bacterial
species can also be isolated. Cutaneous diphtheria has most commonly
affected indigent adults and certain groups of American Indians.

A complete vaccination series substantially reduces the risk of
developing diphtheria, and vaccinated persons who develop disease have
milder illnesses. Protection lasts at least 10 years. Vaccination does
not, however, eliminate carriage of C. diphtheriae in the pharynx or
nose or on the skin.

TETANUS

The occurrence of tetanus in the United States has decreased
dramatically from 560 reported cases in 1947, when national reporting
began, to a record low of 48 reported cases in 1987 (8). The decline
has resulted from widespread use of tetanus toxoid and improved wound
management, including use of tetanus prophylaxis in emergency rooms.

Tetanus in the United States is primarily a disease of older adults.
Of 99 tetanus patients with complete information reported to CDC
during 1987 and 1988, 68% were greater than or equal to 50 years of
age, while only six were less than 20 years of age. No cases of
neonatal tetanus were reported. Overall, the case-fatality rate was
21% (8). The age distribution of recent cases and the results of
serosurveys indicate that many U.S. adults are not protected against
tetanus. Serosurveys undertaken since 1977 indicate that 6%-11% of
adults 18-39 years of age and 49%-66% of those greater than or equal
to 60 years of age may lack protective levels of circulating tetanus
antitoxin (4-7). The disease continues to occur almost exclusively
among persons who are unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated or whose
vaccination histories are unknown or uncertain (8).

Surveys of emergency rooms suggest that 1%-6% of all persons who
receive medical care for injuries that can lead to tetanus receive
less than the recommended prophylaxis (9,10). In 1987-1988, 58% of
tetanus patients with acute injuries did not seek medical care for
their injuries; of those who did, 81% did not receive prophylaxis as
recommended by ACIP guidelines (8).

In 4% of tetanus cases reported during 1987 and 1988, no wound or
other condition was implicated. Nonacute skin lesions such as ulcers,
or medical conditions such as abscesses were reported in association
with 14% of cases.

Neonatal tetanus occurs among infants born under unhygienic conditions
to inadequately vaccinated mothers. Vaccinated mothers confer
protection to their infants through transplacental transfer of
maternal antibody. From 1972 through 1984, 29 cases of neonatal
tetanus were reported in the United States (11). No cases of neonatal
tetanus were reported in the period 1985-1989. Spores of Clostridium
tetani are ubiquitous. Serologic tests indicate that naturally
acquired immunity to tetanus toxin does not occur in the United
States. Thus, universal primary vaccination, with subsequent
maintenance of adequate antitoxin levels by means of appropriately
timed boosters, is necessary to protect persons among all age-groups.
Tetanus toxoid is a highly effective antigen; a completed primary
series generally induces protective levels of serum antitoxin that
persist for greater than or equal to 10 years.

PERTUSSIS

Disease caused by Bordetella pertussis was once a major cause of
infant and childhood morbidity and mortality in the United States
(12,13). Pertussis became a nationally notifiable disease in 1922, and
reports reached a peak of 265,269 cases and 7,518 deaths in 1934. The
highest number of reported pertussis deaths (9,269) occurred in 1923.
The introduction and widespread use of standardized whole-cell
pertussis vaccines combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DTP)
in the late 1940s resulted in a substantial decline in pertussis
disease, a decline which continued without interruption for nearly 30
years.

By 1970, the annual reported incidence of pertussis had been reduced
by 99%. During the 1970s, the annual numbers of reported cases
stabilized at an average of approximately 2,300 cases each year.
During the 1980s, however, the annual numbers of reported cases
gradually increased from 1,730 cases in 1980 to 4,157 cases in 1989.
An average of eight pertussis-associated fatalities was reported each
year throughout the 1980s. It is not clear whether the increase in
reported pertussis reflects a true increase in the incidence of the
disease or improvement in the reporting of pertussis. However, these
data underestimate the true number of cases, because many are
unrecognized or unreported, and diagnostic tests for B. pertussis --
culture and direct-immunofluorescence assay -- may be unavailable,
difficult to perform, or incorrectly interpreted. Because direct-
fluorescent-antibody testing of nasopharyngeal secretions has been
shown in some studies to have low sensitivity and variable
specificity, it should not be relied on as a criterion for laboratory
confirmation (14,15). In addition, reporting criteria have varied
widely among the different states. Laboratory diagnosis based on
serologic testing is not widely available and is still considered
experimental (16). In 1990, to improve the accuracy of reporting, the
U.S. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists adopted uniform
case definitions for pertussis (17).

Before widespread use of DTP, less than 20% of cases and 50%-70% of
pertussis deaths occurred among children less than 1 year of age
(13,18). For the period 1980-1989, 47% of reported illnesses from B.
pertussis occurred among children less than 1 year of age, and 72%
occurred among children less than 5 years of age; 61 (77%) of 79
deaths reported to CDC occurred among children less than 1 year of age
(19). Infants less than 2 months of age were at highest risk of
complications, with a case-fatality rate of 1.3%. Although incidence
based on reported cases increased among all age-groups during the
1980s, the most striking increases occurred among adolescents and
adults (19). Whether this represented a true increase or more complete
recognition and reporting is not clear.

Pertussis is highly communicable (attack rates of greater than 90%
have been reported among unvaccinated household contacts) and can
cause severe disease, particularly among very young children. Of
10,749 patients less than 1 year of age reported nationally as having
pertussis nationally during the period 1980-1989, 69% were
hospitalized, 22% had pneumonia, 3.0% had greater than or equal to one
seizure, 0.9% had encephalopathy, and 0.6% died (19). The high rate of
hospitalization for infants with pertussis has been observed in
several population-based studies (20-22). Because of the substantial
risks of complications of the disease, completion of a primary series
of DTP vaccine early in life is essential.

Among older children and adults, including those previously
vaccinated, B. pertussis infection may result in symptoms of
bronchitis or upper-respiratory-tract infection. Pertussis may not be
diagnosed because classic signs, especially the inspiratory whoop, may
be absent. Older preschool children and school-age siblings who are
not fully vaccinated and who develop pertussis can be important
sources of infection for infants less than 1 year of age. Adults also
play an important role in the transmission of pertussis to
unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated infants and young children
(23).

Controversy regarding the safety of pertussis vaccine during the 1970s
led to several studies of the benefits and risks of this vaccination
during the 1980s. These epidemiologic analyses clearly indicate that
the benefits of pertussis vaccination outweigh any risks (24-28).

PREPARATIONS USED FOR VACCINATION

Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids are prepared by formaldehyde treatment
of the respective toxins and are standardized for potency according to
the regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The limit of
flocculation (Lf) content of each toxoid (quantity of toxoid as
assessed by flocculation) may vary among different products. The
concentration of diphtheria toxoid in preparations intended for adult
use is reduced because adverse reactions to diphtheria toxoid are
apparently directly related to the quantity of antigen and to the age
or previous vaccination history of the recipient, and because a
smaller dosage of diphtheria toxoid produces an adequate immune
response among adults.

Pertussis vaccine is a suspension of inactivated B. pertussis cells.
Potency is assayed by comparison with the U.S. standard pertussis
vaccine in the intracerebral mouse protection test. The protective
efficacy of pertussis vaccines for humans has been shown to correlate
with this measure of vaccine potency.

Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine, as single
antigens or various combinations, are available as aluminum-salt-
adsorbed preparations. Only tetanus toxoid is available in nonabsorbed
(fluid) form. Although the rates of seroconversion are essentially
equivalent with either type of tetanus toxoid, the adsorbed toxoid
induces a more persistent level of antitoxin antibody. The following
preparations are currently available in the United States:

Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (DTP)
and Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids Adsorbed (DT) (for pediatric use)
are for use among infants and children less than 7 years of age. Each
0.5-mL dose is formulated to contain 6.7-12.5 Lf units of diphtheria
toxoid, 5 Lf units of tetanus toxoid, and less than or equal to 16
opacity units of pertussis vaccine. A single human immunizing dose of
DTP contains an estimated 4-12 protective units of pertussis vaccine.

Tetanus and Diphtheria Toxoids Adsorbed for Adult Use (Td) is for use
among persons greater than or equal to 7 years of age. Each 0.5-mL
dose is formulated to contain 2-10 Lf units of tetanus toxoid and less
than or equal to 2 Lf units of diphtheria toxoid.

Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (P), * Tetanus Toxoid (fluid), Tetanus
Toxoid Adsorbed (T), and Diphtheria Toxoid Adsorbed (D) ** (for
pediatric use), are single-antigen products for use in special
instances when combined antigen preparations are not indicated.

____________

Distributed by the Division of Biologic Products, Michigan Department
of Public Health. Contact Dr. Robert Myers, Chief, Division of
Biologic Products, Bureau of Laboratories and Epidemiological
Services, Michigan Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan
48909 (telephone: 517-335-8120).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041645.htm
Kevysmom - 23 Apr 2008 23:20 GMT
From the CDC (AKA Corporate Drug Committee)

When Corporate America (Pharma)doesn't have its filthy hands in our
tax paying agencies, Maybe then they will earn a little respect, But
NOT until.

> DIPHTHERIA
>
[quoted text clipped - 225 lines]
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041645.htm
Myrl - 23 Apr 2008 23:28 GMT
> From the CDC (AKA Corporate Drug Committee)
>
[quoted text clipped - 173 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not especially fond of corporate America either!  That we can
agree on!  But, the world is not all BLACK and all WHITE.  There are
enormous areas of GRAY, which must be explored, for mankind to make
the wisest choices for themselves and their families - especially in
the arena of healthcare!
PeterB - 24 Apr 2008 00:55 GMT
> > From the CDC (AKA Corporate Drug Committee)
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the wisest choices for themselves and their families - especially in
> the arena of healthcare!

But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!   If
all this was any more obvious, I would be using more of these!!!
Myrl - 24 Apr 2008 01:38 GMT
> But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!   If
> all this was any more obvious, I would be using more of these!!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry to disappoint you PeterB - but I have no sponsors!  I am a
mother and grandmother, who is grateful that my family won't need to
suffer from diseases today, that were prevalant a few decades ago!
PeterB - 24 Apr 2008 02:39 GMT
> > But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!   If
> > all this was any more obvious, I would be using more of these!!!- Hide quoted text -
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> to suffer from diseases today, that were prevalant a few decades
> ago!

What a shame vaccine had nothing to do with any of it.  Did you see my
response to your little chart a few minutes ago?  I would ask whether
you know what VAERS is all about, but I doubt you've had time to look
into it with all your broadcast messages pushing vaccine here.
Richard Schultz - 24 Apr 2008 11:46 GMT
In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!  

Whereas *your* sponsors are simply shameless.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Myrl - 24 Apr 2008 15:45 GMT
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!  
>
> Whereas *your* sponsors are simply shameless.

I have to agree with PeterB on this one - my sponsors are my
grandkids, who have me working to find the best health choices for
them.  And they are rather Shameless and Exploitive, when it comes to
weddling back rubs, ice cream, and cookies out of me!

I wouldn't say they weren't Explorers though!
PeterB - 25 Apr 2008 02:01 GMT
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : But Myrl!  Your sponsors are shameless Exploiters, not Explorers!  
>
> Whereas *your* sponsors are simply shameless.

Schultzie, don't you have a date with Randi?  You can win a prize by
talking while your brain is dead, something you do here all the time.
Richard Schultz - 25 Apr 2008 08:58 GMT
In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: Schultzie, don't you have a date with Randi?  You can win a prize by
: talking while your brain is dead, something you do here all the time.

Is there some reason that you are incapable of addressing people by
their names?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the metabolism of the active
ingredient in willow bark and how it differs from the metabolism of the
active ingredient in aspirin.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
D. C. Sessions - 25 Apr 2008 14:47 GMT
> I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the metabolism of the active
> ingredient in willow bark and how it differs from the metabolism of the
> active ingredient in aspirin.

Trying to short-circuit the usual insults:

I believe that it's his thesis that *all* of the ingredients
in willow bark are essential and play together to prevent
any side-effects at all.  Because of the complexity of the
marvels of whole herbs, it's a fundamental fallacy to try
to investigate the details.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
Richard Schultz - 25 Apr 2008 15:31 GMT
In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

:> I'm still waiting for you to tell us about the metabolism of the active
:> ingredient in willow bark and how it differs from the metabolism of the
:> active ingredient in aspirin.

: Trying to short-circuit the usual insults:
:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: marvels of whole herbs, it's a fundamental fallacy to try
: to investigate the details.

You should tell that to the people who did the study reported in Eur. J.
Clin. Pharmacol. (2001) 57: 387-391.  They managed to find the metabolites
of salicin without too much difficulty.  I leave it to PeterB to tell
you the really interesting result of that study.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
D. C. Sessions - 25 Apr 2008 16:23 GMT
> In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> of salicin without too much difficulty.  I leave it to PeterB to tell
> you the really interesting result of that study.

Oh, there are all kinds of interesting things about willow
bark out there.  I kind of like the fact that one of the
key benefits of using the whole bark instead of just extracts
is that with the whole bark you get the tannins.  The good
thing about the tannins is that they're so bitter that it's
hard to get much of the stuff down, so people tend not to
overdose.  On the other hand, tannins from white willow bark
actually hit their toxic limit before you get to the therapeutic
levels for salicin.

An interesting tale, fow what it's worth:
http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/03/how-to-kill-a-dog/
Hardly conclusive, but interesting.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
PeterB - 28 Apr 2008 20:07 GMT
> In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> : In message <fus2v8$vp...@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2001) 57: 387-391.  They managed to find
> the metabolites of salicin without too much difficulty.  

So?

> I leave
> it to PeterB to tell you the really interesting result of that
> study.

Meaning the data doesn't support your argument, whatever it is.
Richard Schultz - 28 Apr 2008 21:01 GMT
:> You should tell that to the people who did the study reported in
:> Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2001) 57: 387-391. ?They managed to find
:> the metabolites of salicin without too much difficulty. ?

: So?

The metabolites of salicin that they found are identical to the metabolites
of acetylsalicylic acid (aka aspirin), something that you apparently did
not know.

:> I leave
:> it to PeterB to tell you the really interesting result of that
:> study.

: Meaning the data doesn't support your argument, whatever it is.

My arguments are (a) you either don't know about the metabolism of
salicinins or you do and are avoiding the subject because you know that
it is problematical for your claims and (b) you are either unfamiliar
with the literature or you are familiar with it but refuse to discuss it
because it is problematical for your claims.  So far, all of the data
collected tend to support my arguments.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 28 Apr 2008 23:53 GMT
> In article <d2ecb1db-452c-4173-ab27-bd33df0c2...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> metabolites of acetylsalicylic acid (aka aspirin), something that
> you apparently did not know.

The point is that salicin metabolizes more slowly than synthetic
acetylsalicylic acid, and because the two are not chemically
identical, aspirin has a lower effective dosage than willow bark.  Why
do you falsely believe these are not factors affecting their toxic
potential?  [ref. www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69421.cfm]

> :> I leave
> :> it to PeterB to tell you the really interesting result of that
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> claims.  So far, all of the data collected tend to support my
> arguments.

Why don't you list out a few bullet points supported by the data and
see if I am already in agreement, which I may be?  Or do you prefer to
continue writing essays that pose as questions in an effort to drag
this out indefinitely?
Richard Schultz - 29 Apr 2008 05:25 GMT
:> In article <d2ecb1db-452c-4173-ab27-bd33df0c2...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

:> :> You should tell that to the people who did the study reported in
:> :> Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2001) 57: 387-391. ?They managed to find
:> :> the metabolites of salicin without too much difficulty. ?

:> : So?

:> The metabolites of salicin that they found are identical to the
:> metabolites of acetylsalicylic acid (aka aspirin), something that
:> you apparently did not know.

: The point is that salicin metabolizes more slowly than synthetic
: acetylsalicylic acid, and because the two are not chemically
: identical, aspirin has a lower effective dosage than willow bark.  Why
: do you falsely believe these are not factors affecting their toxic
: potential?  [ref. www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69421.cfm]

I never said that.  What I said is that the metabolites are identical.  The
article that I referenced gives the concentrations of the metabolites as
a function of time following ingestion of willow bark, and claims that
a dose of willow bark that provides an effective dose of 240 mg of salicin
will yield the same peak concentration of the metabolites as an approximately
90 mg dose of aspirin.  By your argument, therefore, there should be no
problem with ingesting "low dose" aspirin tablets.

:> :> I leave
:> :> it to PeterB to tell you the really interesting result of that
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
: continue writing essays that pose as questions in an effort to drag
: this out indefinitely?

I prefer that you *read the article*, not my summary of it.  You would
just accuse me of lying about the contents anyway.  If you were really as
interested in the subject as you claim to be, you would have already done so.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 29 Apr 2008 23:14 GMT
> :> The metabolites of salicin that they found are identical to the
> :> metabolites of acetylsalicylic acid (aka aspirin), something
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> aspirin.  By your argument, therefore, there should be no problem
> with ingesting "low dose" aspirin tablets.

> :> :> I leave it to PeterB to tell you the really interesting
> :> :> result of that study.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> were really as interested in the subject as you claim to be, you
> would have already done so.

Evasion noted.  I guess it bothers you that I cite articles *you*
haven't read, thus you accuse me of not having read what I myself have
cited.  Brilliant work, Schultzie, worthy of a "diseased mind" award
by Randi.
Richard Schultz - 30 Apr 2008 05:30 GMT
:> I prefer that you *read the article*, not my summary of it. ?You
:> would just accuse me of lying about the contents anyway. ?If you
:> were really as interested in the subject as you claim to be, you
:> would have already done so.
:
: Evasion noted.  

I have cited the relevant results from the study, pointed out that not only
have you not read the study, you have no interest in reading the study, and
pointed out that based on past performance, you would accuse me of lying
about any detailed description of it that I gave.  The one who is evading
here is not me.  But speaking of evasions, when are you going to tell us
who funded the study that you cited demonstrating the anti-viral properties
of elderberry extract, and where that study was published?

: I guess it bothers you that I cite articles *you* haven't read, thus you
: accuse me of not having read what I myself have cited.  

The evidence that you had not read the article that you cited was quite plain.
You cited an article that stated "We suggest that the mortality risks for
aspirin and passenger vehicle travel are similar," but did not recognize
the quotation that I posted, ". . . aspirin poses a risk of fatal stroke
that is ideally outweighed by its protection against heart attack mortality,"
as having come from the same article.  That I was able to find a quote in
the article that you could not, and that I was aware that the risk assessment
for aspirin intake was measured for a population (men over 50, IIRC) that was
at increased risk for other diseases, while you were not, imply that I had
actually read the article in question while you had read only the selection
from the article that your handlers fed you.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 30 Apr 2008 23:03 GMT
> :> I prefer that you *read the article*, not my summary of it. ?You
> :> would just accuse me of lying about the contents anyway. ?If you
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> not only have you not read the study, you have no interest in
> reading the study...

It was explained to you why any demographic for aspirin is meaningless
due to the drug being OTC.  If it were prescription, you might have a
point.  As it is, you don't.

> , and pointed out that based on past performance,
> you would accuse me of lying...

You mean *your* past performance.  Valid point.  Tell you what.  When
you manage to bring up something *truly* relevant, I'll be glad to
address it.  So far, you haven't done that.

> about any detailed description of it
> that I gave.  The one who is evading here is not me.  But speaking
> of evasions, when are you going to tell us who funded the study
> that you cited demonstrating the anti-viral properties of
> elderberry extract, and where that study was published?

Though I have talked about the benefits of elderberry, I don't recall
citing a particular study.  But if I did, so what?  Or if it was
funded by a pharmaceutical outfit, so what?

> : I guess it bothers you that I cite articles *you* haven't read,
> : thus you accuse me of not having read what I myself have cited.  
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that is ideally outweighed by its protection against heart attack
> mortality," ...

Schultzie, we have been over this, but just for you, here is a
chronology of events.  I referred to that in my earlier response when
I explained that claims of aspirin-induced cardiovascular benefits
have been conflicted by other data which show *increased* risk of
aspirin-related heart attack and/or stroke.  Here is what I said on
April 4, 2008, 6:30pm:

"The article [I referenced] goes on to claim a separate cardiovascular
benefit for aspirin, as well, however the evidence for that has been
disputed and a more careful analysis shows it to be theoretical in
nature..."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/534c4f432ffe444e?dmod
e=source


> as having come from the same article.  That I was able
> to find a quote in the article that you could not, and that I was
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the article in question while you had read only the selection
> from the article that your handlers fed you.

Again, irrelevant.  As I said earlier, "drug side effects cannot be
confined to that demographic unless the drug is not OTC.  Aspirin, of
course, is OTC.  That is why I mentioned the Canadian study on the
hazards of the "aspirin resistant" demographic (roughly 25% of the
population)  and the fact that neither you (nor your doctor) knows if
*you* are aspirin resistant, so it's a real gamble, one amplified by
chronic use of the drug.  Plus the fact that because aspirin is OTC,
anyone outside a study demographic can enter that
demographic at any time."

Schultzie obsesses over his logical fallacies by ignoring these points
that *do* address the hazards of chronic aspirin use.  If a particular
demographic (men over 50) is at risk, that does not mean others have
*zero* risk, and the data prove it.
Richard Schultz - 01 May 2008 06:53 GMT
:> I have cited the relevant results from the study, pointed out that
:> not only have you not read the study, you have no interest in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: due to the drug being OTC.  If it were prescription, you might have a
: point.  As it is, you don't.

In other words, not only have you not read the study, you either do not
understand its conclusions or you are deliberately misrepresenting them.
The increased risk from daily intake aspirin by men above age 50 cannot be
used to derive any conclusions about other populations.  In addition,
as I pointed out to you, or rather quoted to you, the authors of that very
study concede that the increased risk of certain bad outcomes may be offset
by the decreased risk of others.

:> , and pointed out that based on past performance,
:> you would accuse me of lying...
:
: You mean *your* past performance.  Valid point.  Tell you what.  When
: you manage to bring up something *truly* relevant, I'll be glad to
: address it.  So far, you haven't done that.

Another evasion from the master.  You asked me for a quotation from a
study rather than going to the trouble of reading it yourself.  As I pointed
out, when I provide you with direct quotes, you either ignore them (since
otherwise you would have to concede that you had not read the article
under discussion), or you accuse me of lying.  That is why you should read
the article I cited about the metabolism of salicinin from willow bark
for yourself, and why I am not going to provide you with quotes because
you are too lazy to do your homework.

:> The evidence that you had not read the article that you cited was
:> quite plain.  You cited an article that stated "We suggest that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:> that is ideally outweighed by its protection against heart attack
:> mortality," ...

The evidence that I had read it was quite plain -- I responded to the
article in which you provided a quote from the article in question by
providing a second quote from the same article.  That you did not (and
apparently still do not) recognize that I was quoting the same article
that you were strongly implies that you had never read the article.  That
you cannot find information that is presented in a table in the article
implies that you do not have the table (and by implication the article in
which the table is found) in front of you.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 02 May 2008 02:49 GMT
> :> I have cited the relevant results from the study, pointed out
> :> that not only have you not read the study, you have no interest
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> do not understand its conclusions or you are deliberately
> misrepresenting them.

In other words, you can type, but you can't read.

> The increased risk from daily intake
> aspirin by men above age 50 cannot be used to derive any
> conclusions about other populations.  

Schultzie, that's just one study.  I cited others, including a
Canadian study on aspirin resistance.  No one knows whether or not
they are aspirin resistant, thus you can't know whether you are a
susceptible to the potentially lethal side effects of chronic aspirin
use.  Many demographics, including children, are well known to be at
risk.

> In addition, as I pointed
> out to you, or rather quoted to you, the authors of that very
> study concede that the increased risk of certain bad outcomes may
> be offset by the decreased risk of others.

But that wasn't a feature of the study, so it's anecdotal.  If you
want to ride that pony, provide data on how many lives aspirin is
saving each year.  Don't forget to cite your sources.

> :> , and pointed out that based on past performance,
> :> you would accuse me of lying...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> from a study rather than going to the trouble of reading it
> yourself.  

I didn't care a twit what you did, I was making the point that you
should make your own argument.  You still are whining because I don't
make your points for you.  Which is understandable, because you can't
make them either.  They don't exist.

> As I pointed out, when I provide you with direct
> quotes, you either ignore them (since otherwise you would have to
> concede that you had not read the article under discussion), or
> you accuse me of lying.  

I don't accuse you of lying, Schultzie.  I read your lies and
reference them later as needed.

> That is why you should read the article I
> cited about the metabolism of salicinin from willow bark for
> yourself, and why I am not going to provide you with quotes because
> you are too lazy to do your homework.

Schultzie, I hate to disappoint you, but my research isn't a product
of your bluffs or puffery.  If you want to give "homework," have
kids.

> The evidence that I had read it was quite plain -- I responded to
> the article in which you provided a quote from the article in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> have the table (and by implication the article in which the table
> is found) in front of you.

Schultzie, why did you delete my earlier response to this same
nonsense?  We have been over this, but here is a chronology of events
once again, just for you.  I referred to that in my earlier response
when I explained that claims of aspirin-induced cardiovascular
benefits have been conflicted by other data which show *increased*
risk of aspirin-related heart attack and/or stroke.  Here is what I
said on April 4, 2008, 6:30pm:

"The article [I referenced] goes on to claim a separate cardiovascular
benefit for aspirin, as well, however the evidence for that has been
disputed and a more careful analysis shows it to be theoretical in
nature..."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/534c4f432ffe444e?dmod
e=source


As stated earlier, "drug side effects cannot be confined to that
demographic unless the drug is not OTC.  Aspirin, of course, is OTC.
That is why I mentioned the Canadian study on the hazards of the
"aspirin resistant" demographic (roughly 25% of the population)  and
the fact that neither you (nor your doctor) knows if *you* are aspirin
resistant, so it's a real gamble, one amplified by chronic use of the
drug.  Plus the fact that because aspirin is OTC, anyone outside a
study demographic can enter that demographic at any time."

Schultzie obsesses over his logical fallacies by ignoring these points
that *do* address the hazards of chronic aspirin use.  If a particular
demographic (men over 50) is at risk, that does not mean others have
*zero* risk, and the data prove it.
Richard Schultz - 02 May 2008 09:57 GMT
:> The increased risk from daily intake
:> aspirin by men above age 50 cannot be used to derive any
:> conclusions about other populations. ?
:
: Schultzie, that's just one study.  I cited others. . .

In the post that I quoted, you cited that single study and made no mention
that its conclusions were restricted to a specific population.  That means
that either you had not read the study in question or that you were lying
about its contents.  Take your pick.

:> In addition, as I pointed
:> out to you, or rather quoted to you, the authors of that very
:> study concede that the increased risk of certain bad outcomes may
:> be offset by the decreased risk of others.

: But that wasn't a feature of the study, so it's anecdotal.  If you
: want to ride that pony, provide data on how many lives aspirin is
: saving each year.  Don't forget to cite your sources.

I read it somewhere in an article written by a medical doctor.  The
point that I was making in my previous post, however, was that *you were
unaware that I was quoting the same article that you were*, which strongly
implies that you never read any more of the article than the quote that
your handlers supplied to you.

: I didn't care a twit what you did, I was making the point that you
: should make your own argument.  You still are whining because I don't
: make your points for you.  Which is understandable, because you can't
: make them either.  They don't exist.

No, I am merely reporting that based on your past performance, even if
I provide a direct quote from a source, and a citation to where others
can read the quotation for themselves, you still accuse me of lying about
the content of the quote.  That's why the burden of proof is on you, since
you have declared me an untrustworthy source of information.

:> That is why you should read the article I
:> cited about the metabolism of salicinin from willow bark for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: Schultzie, I hate to disappoint you, but my research isn't a product
: of your bluffs or puffery.  If you want to give "homework," have kids.

What I posted was no bluff or puffery.  Ingestion of willow bark leads to
the identical metabolites that ingestion of aspirin does -- something that
you either did not know or were unwilling to admit.  The article that I cited
showed that the peak concentration of the metabolites occurs within 2 hours
of ingestion (so much for your claims that it is metabolized more slowly
than aspirin).  If you want to know what else the article said, read it
yourself.  I can understand why you would be reluctant to do so.

: As stated earlier, "drug side effects cannot be confined to that
: demographic unless the drug is not OTC.  

Which shows what an idiot (or liar -- take your pick) you are.  The study
that *you* quoted assessed the risk of aspirin in a specific population
(men over 50).  Their conclusions about the risk cannot be extended to
any other group because *they did not measure the risk for any other group*.
I really find it hard to understand what part of that is too difficult
for you to grasp, and why the statement that aspirin is an OTC drug is
completely irrelevant.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 03 May 2008 00:22 GMT
> :> The increased risk from daily intake
> :> aspirin by men above age 50 cannot be used to derive any
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> question or that you were lying about its contents.  Take your
> pick.

Nope, I provided a quote regarding aspirin that would be easily found
and challenged you to find it.  You apparently did manage to find it
(surprisingly) but you now want to whine because I didn't discuss the
study demographic at the same time.  I did not discuss the study
demographic because it wasn't relevant to my point that aspirin has
documented risks, though I am happy to discuss whatever particular
risk aspirin poses depending on the study.  The point is that aspirin
side effects are noted to occur in many demographics, inlcuding
children, a very well known risk group.   And aspirin resistance
(another documented risk factor), is not age limited.  Finally,
because aspirin is OTC, one cannot measure the risk of chronic aspirin
use broadly because consumers are typically not aware they fall into a
susceptible demographic, or perhaps they use the drug anyway.  They
may also enter a problem demographic without knowing it.

> :> In addition, as I pointed
> :> out to you, or rather quoted to you, the authors of that very
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I read it somewhere in an article written by a medical doctor.

You're lying.  There is no study documenting a longevity benefit for
aspirin, or any other drug, for that matter.  You're just making that
up.  If I'm wrong, find the study and cite it.

> The point that I was making in my previous post, however, was that
> *you were unaware that I was quoting the same article that you
> were*, which strongly implies that you never read any more of the
> article than the quote that your handlers supplied to you.

Schultzie, why do you continue to delete my earlier response to this
nonsense unless it because you have no argument otherwise.  Notice the
absnece of a question mark.  We have been over this, but here is a
chronology of events once again, just for you.  I referred to that in
my earlier response when I explained that claims of aspirin-induced
cardiovascular benefits have been conflicted by other data which show
*increased* risk of aspirin-related heart attack and/or stroke.  Here
is what I said on April 4, 2008, 6:30pm:

---- READ CAREFULLY ----

"The article [I referenced] GOES ON TO CLAIM A SEPARATE CARDIOVASCULAR
BENEFIT FOR ASPIRIN, as well, however the evidence for that has been
disputed and a more careful analysis shows it to be theoretical in
nature..."

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/534c4f432ffe444e?dmod
e=source


Schultzie obsesses over his logical fallacies by ignoring these points
that *do* address the hazards of chronic aspirin use.  If a particular
demographic (men over 50) is at risk, that does not mean others have
*zero* risk, and the data prove it.

> : I didn't care a twit what you did, I was making the point that
> : you should make your own argument.  You still are whining
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> burden of proof is on you, since you have declared me an
> untrustworthy source of information.

I don't accuse you of lying, Schultzie.  I read your lies and
reference them later as needed.  Why should the burden of proof for
drug efficacy be placed on individuals who are not defending them?
The burden of such proof (were it to exist) must rest with you, a
defender of the Faith, one who believes in the myth that "drugs treat,
prevent, and cure disease."

> :> That is why you should read the article I
> :> cited about the metabolism of salicinin from willow bark for
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> said, read it yourself.  I can understand why you would be
> reluctant to do so.

I cited a reference that supports my position on that, but you ignored
it.  [ref. www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69421.cfm]  Even if the two
metabolites were produced in the same amount of time, however, that
doesn't mean the effects of synthetic acetylsalicylic acid can't be
harmful to stomach tissue *prior* to metabolization.  There are plenty
of studies on aspirin-related bleeding documentating exactly that.

> : As stated earlier, "drug side effects cannot be confined to that
> : demographic unless the drug is not OTC.  
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> risk cannot be extended to any other group because *they did not
> measure the risk for any other group*.

Schultzie, try to follow along.  No one is trying to extend the risk
of aspirin to any other group based on that one study.  The risks as
stated, however, are real, and there is no way to know if you are at-
risk due to being aspirin resistant at ANY age.  Even your doctor
can't tell you.  Add to that the fact that aspirin is OTC, and even
someone with your limited abilities should be able to understand that
the risk of chronic aspirin use is broad and unpredictable, regardless
of a particular study demographic.

I really find it hard to
> understand what part of that is too difficult for you to grasp,
> and why the statement that aspirin is an OTC drug is completely
> irrelevant.

It's okay, Schultzie, we're here to help.
Richard Schultz - 04 May 2008 06:00 GMT
:> In the post that I quoted, you cited that single study and made no
:> mention that its conclusions were restricted to a specific
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
: Nope, I provided a quote regarding aspirin that would be easily found
: and challenged you to find it.  

And you failed to include the vital fact that the quote was not regarding
the use of aspirin in general, but the use of aspirin among a specific
population.

: You apparently did manage to find it (surprisingly)

I see that you still can't tell whether I found it or not -- presumably
because the only part of it that you have read is the sentence provided
to you by your handlers.

: but you now want to whine because I didn't discuss the study demographic
: at the same time.  I did not discuss the study demographic because it
: wasn't relevant to my point that aspirin has documented risks,

You didn't discuss the study demographic because you did not know what it was.
So far, you have managed to show that aspirin has documented risks *for
men over 50*, but not for anyone else.  Nor have you considered the
possibility that the benefits might outweigh the risks.

: The point is that aspirin side effects are noted to occur in many
: demographics, inlcuding children, a very well known risk group.  

Children were not mentioned in the study, but, interestingly enough, as
soon as those risks were well enough documented, the manufacturers of
aspirin began putting a warning on the label.

:> : But that wasn't a feature of the study, so it's anecdotal. ?If
:> : you want to ride that pony, provide data on how many lives
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
: aspirin, or any other drug, for that matter.  You're just making that
: up.  If I'm wrong, find the study and cite it.

I'm not going to make your points for you.  Answer any *one* of the
questions posed to you that you have refused to answer, and I'll consider it.

:> Which shows what an idiot (or liar -- take your pick) you
:> are. ?The study that *you* quoted assessed the risk of aspirin in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
: Schultzie, try to follow along.  No one is trying to extend the risk
: of aspirin to any other group based on that one study.  

Are you that stupid that you don't even read what *you* post?  That's
a rhetorical question.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Richard Schultz - 04 May 2008 12:53 GMT
: You're lying.  There is no study documenting a longevity benefit for
: aspirin, or any other drug, for that matter.  You're just making that
: up.  If I'm wrong, find the study and cite it.

Here references to, and relevant quotes from, *two* studies showing that in
some cases, the benefits of long-term aspirin use outweigh the risks.  

(1) BMJ 321 (2000) 1183-1187, "Risk of Gastrointestinal Haemorrhage with Long
Term Use of Aspirin: Meta-analysis."

    . . .This means that if aspirin was used in patients with stroke
    who had similar baseline risks to those above, at least two
    recurrent strokes could be prevented at the cost of one
    gastrointestinal haemorrhage.  The benefits of aspirin are less
    marked, however, in primary prevention of myocardial infarction—in
    the US physicians study, the number needed to treat per year
    was 555,[w9] whereas the number needed to treat per year in
    hypertensive patients was 794.w3 Aspirin use in primary prevention
    could, depending on the baseline risks of the patients, cause
    two or three gastrointestinal haemorrhages for each myocardial
    infarction prevented.

    As there are relatively few deaths after gastrointestinal
    haemorrhage (estimated death rate 12%[10]) compared with
    myocardial infarction, such a trade-off may be considered
    worth while.

(2) Arch Intern Med. 162 (2002) 2197-2202, "Evaluation of the Benefits and
Risks of Low-Dose Aspirin in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and
Cerebrovascular Events."

    Results  Aspirin reduced all-cause mortality by 18%. In addition,
    aspirin use reduced the number of strokes by 20%, myocardial
    infarctions by 30%, and other "vascular events" by 30%. Alternately,
    patients who took aspirin were 2.5 times more likely than those
    in the placebo group to have gastrointestinal tract bleeding. The
    number needed to treat for aspirin to prevent 1 death from any
    cause of mortality was 67, while 100 needed to be treated to
    detect 1 nonfatal gastrointestinal tract bleeding.

    Conclusion  Aspirin use for the secondary prevention of
    thromboembolic events has a favorable benefit-to-risk profile and
    should be encouraged in those at high risk.

I look forward to your backpedalling.

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
PeterB - 28 Apr 2008 19:59 GMT
> In message <fus2v8$vp...@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> marvels of whole herbs, it's a fundamental fallacy to try
> to investigate the details.

Investigate all you like.  Let us know what you learn.
D. C. Sessions - 24 Apr 2008 05:05 GMT
>> From the CDC (AKA Corporate Drug Committee)
>>
>> When Corporate America (Pharma)doesn't have its filthy hands in our
>> tax paying agencies, Maybe then they will earn a little respect, But
>> NOT until.

[178 lines snipped]

> I'm not especially fond of corporate America either!  That we can
> agree on!  But, the world is not all BLACK and all WHITE.  There are
> enormous areas of GRAY, which must be explored, for mankind to make
> the wisest choices for themselves and their families - especially in
> the arena of healthcare!

Somewhere near the "black" end of things is reposting almost
200 lines to add a six-line generic response.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
D. C. Sessions - 24 Apr 2008 05:03 GMT
> At one time, diphtheria was common in the United States. More than
> 200,000 cases, primarily among children, were reported in 1921.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> cases were fatal, and 18 (75%) occurred among persons greater than or
> equal to 20 years of age.

From /The Practice of Medicine/ Meakins, 1944:
"The success of this method of prevention has been most
gratifying, as is shown in Chart VIII [1][2].  Between 1929
and and 1934 when an energetic effort was made to protect
preschool children, the number of cases of diphtheria was
reduced from 3,854 in 1929 to 686 in 1934."

[1] Scanned image available upon request; this isn't a
   binary newsgroup -- dcs.
[2] Deaths per 100,000 children under age 10 in 1881 were
   about 1180.  At that rate, one child in ten would die
   of diphtheria before the age of ten years.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.