Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008
DIPHTHERIA
|
|
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 infarctionin 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> ---+
|
|
|