SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by ikanreed
An innocent child died because alt-med psychos successfully convinced his mom that essential oils and megadoses of vitamin C could treat the flu better than tamiflu.
I wouldn't post about it, but that complete fucker alt-med psycho here was spreading this same propoganda, and I want something I can link next time he opens his mouth and ideological diarrhea falls out. Just... fuck you AC. Fuck what you stand for, and fuck you for moralizing when your believes do actually kill people.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
If I have trouble installing Linux, something is wrong. Very wrong.
-- Linus Torvalds
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 07 2020, @05:13PM (21 children)
The problem here isn't that Vitamin C doesn't work - it's that it's the wrong tool for the job. A screwdriver doesn't work very well for driving nails, even if it's a perfectly good screwdriver.
Vitamin C is an immune booster, there's plenty of evidence for this, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29099763
Immune boosters don't cure anything. They simply contribute to the proper function of your immune system. It's a prophylactic, a preventative measure.
In my experience, if I remember to start taking it a week or so before flu season, and keep going until it's past, I'm very unlikely to develop any symptoms, even after multiple exposures to those who do have symptoms.
However it's definitely not a miracle cure to apply after the fact, that's just irresponsible nonsense. It doesn't seem to do any harm, there might even be a slight benefit to it, but nothing more. BUT if you're a healthy adult the flu isn't likely to kill you anyway, even without treatment you'll probably be miserable for a few days then recover, so even if you unwisely rely on Vitamin C in that situation, incorrectly thinking it's a cure, you'll still probably get through it just fine. And you won't realize that the source you are getting your information from here is actually misleading you.
And that sets the stage for the real tragedy. We've started with preventative treatment that works fairly well. We've mistakenly misapplied that treatment, and the results were not so bad that alarm bells went off. Now we have a much more serious situation, because it's not an adult that's infected, it's a 4 year old, a child. Instead of merely being uncomfortable, the infection is life threatening. And because the treatment seemed to work for the adult, we now try it on the child, and that's still not enough to make this a tragedy, because there was nothing stopping her from administering BOTH the vitamin and the antiviral.
So the vitamin isn't to blame here, it's the people misusing it. And frankly I think there has to be more to the story than your source is telling us as well. Because what caused the death is clearly not the presence of the vitamin, but the absence of the anti-viral. It's one thing to mistakenly think that the vitamin is a good treatment, it's another to watch your 4 year old as he lays dying and decide NOT to fill that prescription. Worried about side-effects? Fair enough, I would be too, but better side-effects than dead kid, surely?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @05:23PM (20 children)
That's not quite what the link is saying. It says a Vitamin C DEFICIENCY is bad for you immune system. Most people get plenty of Vitamin C from their diet. It says nothing about taking extra resulting in a boost.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @05:44PM (6 children)
And severely ill people are found to be deficient in vitamin C. Getting them back up to normal requires much more than expected from pharmacokinetics observed in healthy people.
The main problem is that measuring vitamin C is very rare.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @06:19PM (1 child)
If the testing is so rare how do you know they're deficient?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @07:06PM
Because people have run the studies. It is only tested when people are specifically studying vitamin C. I can provide some links if you actually care...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @10:17PM (3 children)
I never should have taught you that word when I thought you were actually open to changing your mind.
You are misusing "pharmacokinetics" in that sentence by labeling some other concept with that word to add authority to your argument or lack the basic understanding of what it means to use it properly. Either is bad enough to render your sentence nonsensical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @11:12PM (2 children)
You taught me the word pharamcokinetics? Wtf? Here is the main study in healthy people:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39676/ [nih.gov]
Can you find an equivalent study in sick people? Here is the best I found (which is only IV, ie not oral), they say sick people need at 30x more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725835/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @12:06AM (1 child)
For the record, "Pharmacokinetics" was never used in reference to Vitamin C on this website until I used it here [soylentnews.org] based on my search of the website comments. And, for the record, none of the information invalidates the pharmacokinetic models of previous studies you harp against, nor is it surprising or "much more" in light of them. You and anyone else who understands pharmacokinetics should instantly be able to see that fact. The fact that you don't is further evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of pharmacokinetics. As I said, I originally engaged back then because I thought you, or that other AC was not you, and others might want to learn. But I see now that my curse of knowledge and the medium of this website will prevent such an education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @12:22AM
So 100 mg of vitamin C raises the morning plasma levels of healthy people with baseline of 50 uM to 80 uM. It has zero effect on the blood levels of sick people with baseline blood levels of 10 uM.
Why is there this difference in response? Perhaps it has to do with metabolism, excretion, and distribution of vitamin C?
That is not pharmacokinetics according to you. Every academic article about it refers to it as pharmacokinetics, but the AC who discovers they are the first person the search on soylentnews.org returns knows the top secret definition.
Begone Troll.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Friday February 07 2020, @06:24PM (4 children)
From the article: "Prophylactic prevention of infection requires dietary vitamin C intakes that provide at least adequate, if not saturating plasma levels (i.e., 100-200 mg/day), which optimize cell and tissue levels. In contrast, treatment of established infections requires significantly higher (gram) doses of the vitamin to compensate for the increased inflammatory response and metabolic demand."
So not only do you need as much as 20 times the minimum dose to prevent scurvy *normally* but clearly you'll need *more* than that when the demands on your body are higher - e.g. when you're trying to fight off an incipient infection.
From you: "Most people get plenty of Vitamin C from their diet."
From the article: "Epidemiological studies have indicated that hypovitaminosis C (plasma vitamin C < 23 μmol/L) is relatively common in Western populations, and vitamin C deficiency (<11 μmol/L) is the fourth leading nutrient deficiency in the United States [13,14]."
"It says nothing about taking extra resulting in a boost."
If we understand "extra" as being above and beyond what the body currently needs to maintain saturation, yes, you're correct. Excess is passed through urine and megadosers may often pass more than they keep. But it's harmless when not needed, and the point is to ensure that the saturation level is maintained, even when usage temporarily skyrockets.
So, let's say your normal diet gives you right in the middle of their saturation estimate, you get 150mg/day. You have no stressors, you're cruising along just fine. Then the flu bug shows up. Your body kicks into high gear to fight it, and it uses lots of vitamin c in the process. Your plasma saturation drops rapidly in response, and your immune system is suddenly coping with a shortage. If you started off several days before the event taking 1 gram/day instead, you're going to excrete a good portion of what you're taking - harmlessly - until the day that the bug hits. And that day, you excrete less, metabolise more, and maintain your saturation level so your immune system doesn't have to cope with a shortage.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)
To be fair, I'm not saying there is absolutely ZERO effect. Just that for most people the excessive claims made about it are generally false.
Can vitamin C prevent a cold? [harvard.edu]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 07 2020, @07:12PM (2 children)
The cold study appears to be quite compatible with the one that I cited and my best understanding of how this works. The extremely active people are under more stress and use more vitamin c daily as a result. Even a modest increase in their daily intake therefore translates into improved immune performance over time. The more sedentary and sheltered general population sees no discernible improvement because most of the time they don't need any supplement to their dietary intake, and conversely the amount being taken (200mg) is just too small to have much effect on infection day itself. But it's still helpful in terms of shortening the infection, because at least you're repeating it every day. In a sense, once the infection hits, the general population member suddenly becomes a member of the first group - under increased daily stress.
You can think of it in military terms. If your military is just sitting still and taking it easy, they don't need much ammunition. Say they use 50mg of ammunition per day on target practice, and they have enough warehouses to store 200mg of ammo total. You can't give them more warehouses. I know it's silly, just play along.
You give them a budget of 100mg/day, they have all their warehouses already full, but they only use 50mg/day anyway, so they never even use up what you've allocated to them. Everything is great, no worries.
Then one day your neighbor declares war and invades and in the first day your military uses all the ammo they have, all 300mg (200 in stock plus 100 daily allotment) dumped downrange, the warehouses are empty, the magazines are empty, you're on the verge of collapse, you could have easily used a lot more ammo that first day if it had been in the budget. And today you get... another 100mg. You, sir, have an ammo deficiency. And even if you increase your budget immediately, it's still too late to get the best effect. The very first day is the day when it's most important to have plenty of ammo.
As far as I understand it, that's *basically* how vitamin c works with the immune system. Normally you only need a fairly small amount to avoid deficit, but demands skyrocket in times of stress, particularly immune stress, and since your body cannot synthesize the stuff and cannot store all that much of it the same intake that was perfectly adequate yesterday could represent a severe deficit tomorrow.
But yeah, I don't think it cures anything, and ffs if your 4 year old has the flu don't give him some vitamin c and assume he'll be fine.
That's just... horrible.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @08:06PM
That you recover more quickly with extra C would seem to support the "using it up" hypothesis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @09:51PM
Even 2500 mg x 2 times (yes, five grams total in a day) if you got high fever right on the first day of the infection. Do not know what to do in case of high fever continuing on the second day, as such a thing never happened. :)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 08 2020, @12:12AM (7 children)
Part of the issue is determining what constitutes a deficiency. The RDA isn't useful for that, it just characterizes the bare minimum to avoid overt clinical signs of disorder. It's probably somewhere between that and "why is my pee neon green?".
For vitamin C, err on the high side, it's cheap and you'll just pee out the excess (note, if you are in renal failure, your mileage WILL vary) but be more careful with vitamin A, that one is possible to OD on and it can be bad (see Ghostbusters for a discussion of bad).
And, of course, don't use the vitamin C as a REPLACEMENT for medical care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @12:27AM (6 children)
The RDA is typically defined as the amount that leads to steady state levels in the blood. Ie, when you take in more it all gets excreted.
It is not perfect but that is what is usually used. Deficiency is defined as the level commonly associated with health issues or some number of standard deviations from the average of a bunch of "normal" people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday February 08 2020, @11:14AM (5 children)
NO [utoronto.ca].
That might be a useful approach, but if you'll search on "how was RDA determined" You will not find it mentioned as a methodology anywhere.
In many cases it is a best guess with a fudge factor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @11:53AM (4 children)
Please quote the part you think supports your "No".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 08 2020, @06:29PM (3 children)
Imagine a quote mark at the top of that page and another at the bottom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @08:42PM (2 children)
This is the paper used to set the RDA in the US: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39676/ [nih.gov]
So whatever you are saying is wrong if it disagrees with what they did there (gave vitamin c until it was all pissed out).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday February 08 2020, @11:22PM (1 child)
That was a recommendation for a change to the RDA. That that paper reported that 1000mg/day is the saturation point, and found that at 100mg/day, none is excreted. Given that in the summary, the researchers recommend 200mg/day and the current RDA is 60mg/day, I would say the recommendation was not followed and that the RDA has nothing to do with the saturation point of vitamin C in the body.
As I said, it seems like a reasonable way to find the recommended levels, but it is NOT the method that was used to set the values for the RDA. In fact, the difference between the value suggested by the paper you cite and the actual published value for the RDA is why I question the usefulness of the RDA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09 2020, @05:28PM
No it is not a reasonable way:
https://www.vitamincfoundation.org/hickey/index.htm [vitamincfoundation.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @05:40PM (5 children)
This is a meaningless anecdote. There is not even a dose or method of administration mentioned in your post. No one said vitamin c is magic...
Literally you are moron if you conclude "vitamin c doesnt work" from this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @06:25PM (4 children)
So this negligent mother uses Vitamin C to treat the flu and the kid ends up dead. And you think it's unwarranted to conclude that the Vitamin C didn't work?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 07 2020, @06:29PM (2 children)
Although, to be fair, the kid definitely no longer has the flu!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @07:51PM
Death cures everything(-1)
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday February 07 2020, @11:40PM
Rickets either.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @07:17PM
Whatever dose/etc of vitamin C was given apparently did not work in this case. The OP concludes "vitamin C doesn't work".
Eg, Vitamin C will do nothing if there is already structural damage to the tissue. That is like putting water on a house that already burnt down and saying it didn't save the house. It also won't work if you only give the recommended dose of like 100 mg (although the requirement will obviously be less in children).
And the correct question is whether the risk/cost-benefit profile comes out in favor of benefit. Not whether it works in every single case. Here is a review showing that at least 259 people have died after taking tamiflu (table 1):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679687/ [nih.gov]
Are you going to say "tamiflu does not work" based on those 259 deaths?
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 07 2020, @06:45PM (11 children)
Experts would be more trusted if expert advice was more reliable and understandable. I'm still waiting for those glaciers to melt. [soylentnews.org] People who claim expertise should count this tragedy as a warning against overhyping their claims.
I know little about human health, but if I get the flu this year and the MD prescribes Tamiflu, I would ask them why they prescribed it, given that this CDC report [cdc.gov] shows almost no "Reduced Inhibition" for Oseltamivir (Tamiflu).
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 07 2020, @06:58PM (1 child)
I wrote:
The MD might tell me that no "Reduced Inhibition" is good (a triple negative?), and the CDC also says
Thanks in advance for any snippy comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NickM on Friday February 07 2020, @07:48PM
The other flu antivirals also have the usefulness limiting requirement of being administered in the first 48hr as they are all inhibitor of the influenza neuramidase enzym. That enzym enable a freshly assembled influenza virus to break out of it's host cell so inhibiting it a good strategy but influenza is replicated so fast that after 48h there are enough viruses manufactured to cause a full blown flu.
There are others flu antivirals but are no longer recommended as according to the WHO they do not work anymore as the strains of influenza A in circulations have all acquired resistance to the inhibition of the influenza M2 proton channel.
Hand sanitizer is still your best defense against the influenza, the vaccine is the second one. And personally I would not count on the current flu antivirals for protection.
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 08 2020, @04:33AM
Well, there's that and there's the fact that you have only an extremely minor chance of anything beyond a miserable week from the flu unless you're very young or very old. It's just not something your immune system can't handle on its own and entirely for free unless it's compromised by age or something else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Wednesday February 12 2020, @06:25PM (7 children)
FYI: It wasn't experts who made those signs, it was park employees. The "experts" estimated 2030. Also, most of the glaciers did melt. The ones that remain are much smaller than they used to be.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday February 12 2020, @07:29PM (6 children)
National Park Service employees are experts regarding their parks, like NOAA employees are experts regarding the oceans and atmosphere. My lesson from this fiasco is that neither should be trusted when it comes to long-term predictions.
Here [mtpr.org] is the mealy-mouthed interview with a government scientist where the journalist at least tries to ask what went wrong. I'd summarize it as: The science was shit, but we still posted the prediction. Have "faith" in newer predictions about year 2100. Unfortunately we don't learn about the decision chain that led to the "all gone by year 2020" sign, and to what degree similar errors are written into the official National Climate Assessment.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:19PM (5 children)
You are a liar. One of those horrible anti-science liars who I have to constantly debunk because you link to sources just so that you sound smart, knowing that people won't actually read them and realize they don't support your point. You then claim the exact opposite of what the linked article says.
The article you linked to makes it very clear. The scientists predicted that some specific set of glaciers would be gone in 2030, but employees made signs that said all glaciers would be gone by 2020. The employees were wrong because they ignored the science. The scientists might be right -- lets check back in 2030. Should there be any question about the history of this: here is a study from 2003 claiming the 2030 date [oup.com]. And here is an article from 2013 lamenting the loss of 2 more glaciers that also states the 2030 date. [archive.org]
In 2031, when there's still one glacier left at 5% of its original volume, will you again be spout how we shouldn't trust scientists because their prediction was wrong? Is every year you continue to live proof that you are immortal?
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:10PM (2 children)
If I'm a liar, it should be easy to quote me in a lie. I doubt you can. The MTPR interview doesn't explain the decision process for making those signs at all and it doesn't say how much input scientists had. The most relevant excerpt is this:
It says there was a 2003 study, which may be the one you linked. It says nothing about whether scientists were consulted when making the "all gone by year 2020" signs. Your position seems to be that the official government statements just reflect whatever some incompetent employees wanted the message to be. That may be true, and is highly relevant for the National Climate Assessment.
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Friday February 14 2020, @05:59PM (1 child)
One of your lies from this thread is:
Which is the exact opposite of what the article said. It said the science so far looks good. And it says they did not post the prediction.
I'm only so angry because you also keep doing this over and over. In the CDC article earlier you linked to an article that showed Tamiflu was effective, while claiming that it supported your statement that it is not effective. Then you link to your other anti-climate science post where you say:
Here you imply that climate science has only made 2 predictions and both were wrong. Yes, there have been ONLY 2 PREDICTIONS EVER. *smh* Instead, you cherry-picked 2 predictions - one of which is so actually right so far! - then claimed that is a reason we should not trust science in general.
It is pointless telling you what you already know you are doing. The only reason I post this stuff is in the vain chance that someone who might have encountered your lie, and doesn't have the time or inclination to read the link and see you were lying, might read these child posts and avoid falling into the trap.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 14 2020, @09:54PM
My original question about Tamiflu included the phrase "I know little about human health". After the answer dawned on me, I replied to myself to clarify [soylentnews.org]. This must be the "snippy comments" thread I anticipated.
The "glaciers all gone by year 2020" claim was, among other blown predictions, featured in Al Gore's 2006 movie. According to climate superhero Dr. James Hansen the movie was scientifically accurate [wikipedia.org]. The MTPR interviewee pointed out that the 2003 prediction was made based on glacier area but what you really need is "information about the existing ice volume". She added:
That's a polite way of saying the science was shit.
The relevant passage in my journal [soylentnews.org] reads:
You're welcome to post correct predictions but don't bother unless you read the above PS.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 14 2020, @07:00AM (1 child)
No, you're the liar. You wrote:
The 2020 prediction was made by Daniel B. Fagre, USGS scientist and co-author of the 2003 paper you linked. It's straight from the horse's mouth, not some random "employee". The original National Geographic News story from 2009 is gone, but a copy is available [blogspot.com] that quotes Fagre:
(Score: 2) by mobydisk on Friday February 14 2020, @06:28PM
You did it again! You linked to an article as though it proved your point when it does not! *smh* Nothing in that article calls me a liar.
Ironically, while your original posts are all about how we should not trust experts and scientists, you are here quoting them when you think you can use it to attack someone. Did you just google "glacier 2020" and then act as though this was your point all along?
The park service made a mistake. They didn't use science, they used alarmism. Stop attacking the people doing the good work and research. Stop twisting their words against them and against me. You are blaming the wrong people.
(Score: 2) by NickM on Friday February 07 2020, @06:59PM (1 child)
Tamiflu, the antiviral agent of dubious efficacy that only proven effect is making Rumsfeld¹ even richer², is almost as useless as vitamin C against flu. It only barely works if administred inside a 48 hours window starting with the first symptoms of infection, it can produce potentially dangerous side effects and it doesn't reduce the rate of hospitalization nor the prevalence of complications³.
Superb comparison as vitamin C has accepted use in oncology, at least in Germany: 7.5g injected 24hr after a dose of chemotherapy significantly reduces the permanent side effect of the therapy without affecting the effectiveness of said therapy ⁴. I noticed it first hand during my wife chemotherapy and so did the oncologist. He did not believe how few side effects⁵ she had compared to his other patients on a similar regimen (ACT : doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel) while benefiting of the same therapeutic effect.
1-https://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/
2-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1176743/Donald-Rumsfelds-controversial-links-drug-company-Tamiflu.html
3- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22997224-effectiveness-of-oseltamivir-in-adults-a-meta-analysis-of-published-and-unpublished-clinical-trials/ [nih.gov]
4-https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22021693-intravenous-vitamin-c-administration-improves-quality-of-life-in-breast-cancer-patients-during-chemo-radiotherapy-and-aftercare-results-of-a-retrospective-multicentre-epidemiological-cohort-study-in-germany/
5- She only had alopecia and light nausea caused by the horrible persistent stench of the doxorubicin and paclitaxel. She experienced no episode of vomiting, fatigue, depression or neuropathy !
I a master of typographic, grammatical and miscellaneous errors !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @09:32PM
Saying this from experience.
Having a box of it at home is really useful; start to take it the same day you got sick, get better fast.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @08:25PM (3 children)
First a quick question. What do you think of healthcare in China? You probably know that traditional Chinese medicine falls pretty much a 180 from ours and is generally based on traditional lore and a pseudo-mystical interpretation of how the body works. And in spite of calling themselves a communist country, they do not have free healthcare - and many citizens struggle to afford basic coverage. As is readily apparent in the current era, China is (and oddly enough even historically often was) a source of a large number of plagues and viruses. For instance SARS resulted in thousands of deaths and this current plague may ultimately end up topping it. Oh and China is the biggest smoking country in the world. They have 350 million smokers, including 60% of all doctors. And finally of course you are also probably aware that much of China still lives in abject poverty. Generally not a good thing for health outcomes.
Ok. Now for the natural follow up. What do you think their life expectancy is? Here [wikipedia.org] is the answer. It's only about 2.8% less than ours. Does this make any sense to you, whatsoever, if you take as an assumption that our medical and especially pharmacological systems are at all as effective as we frame them to be?
I tend to take a somewhat more cynical view. The United States is one of only two countries in the world that permits direct to consumer prescription drug advertising. We've got a pill for everything. And then a pill for the side effects of your other pills. Speaking of side effects [wikipedia.org], ewww. That's the side effect list for oseltamivir - 'tamilflu' is a marketing name. Unclear effects on the heart potentially include serious arrhythmias, seizure, 'hemorrhagic coltis' (bleeding out the ass), a potentially fatal skin reaction known as Stevens-Johnson syndrome with a mortality rate of 5-30%, and much much more.
Suffice to say China is also not offering a gazillion new vaccines for everything. They follow a basic vaccine schedule (measels, mumps, etc) but even there have run into some difficulties with providers offering ineffective vaccines. I mean all of these problems and issues, yet they have > 97% of our life expectancy? And their life expectancy has been increasing at the same time ours has been decreasing. It's very possible within a couple of decades, they'll be living longer than we do. And it's certainly not because of a million new heavily commercialized drugs.
---
The point of this is that each year tens of thousands [cdc.gov] of people in America alone, die from the flu. Even with the best healthcare in the world, people with weak immune systems not only can but will continue to die from the flu every year, regardless of what you do. It's nice to imagine that all of our drugs are working wonders and saving immense numbers of lives, but when you look at things on a macro level this is clearly not the case. Keep in mind that the studies that prove the efficacy (and safety!) of drugs are carried out by the same drug companies that stand to make buckets of money if their study comes back positive. That's a pretty messed up incentive.
What would be interesting here is to know of all people that treated e.g. 4 year olds with rest, juice, and basic fever control (paracetamol) what percent ended up dying? By contrast of those that treated their children with novel pharmaceuticals including oseltamivir, what percent ended up dying? But of course you'll never get information like this. When you get the rare occurrence of somebody dying following usage of our novel pharmaceuticals, who cares? When you get the rare occurrence of somebody dying following the treatments we've been using for millennia? It's headline national news.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday February 08 2020, @01:05AM (2 children)
America has the best healthcare in the world if you have access to it.
How many of those tens of thousands had no insurance or delayed treatment due to high co-pays and limited 'in network' access?
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @01:17AM
Steve jobs had the ultimate access to it. He allowed them to do multiple very expensive procedures that did not live up to the promise. Then he decided to live out the rest of his life with less pain and suffering. The media owned by the same people on the boards of the healthcare companies called him a moron and blamed his death on the last thing he did instead of all he cutting up and poisoning he let them do earlier.
Have Fun!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @11:50AM
That's not really the factor you might think. This is a global phenomena. For instance Canada has nationalized healthcare and they see around 3,500 flu deaths a year. That's around 1/10th of our yearly deaths and, lo and behold, they have about 1/10th of our population. This is the whole point. America is again one of only two nations that allow drug makers to create and market their latest drugs directly to consumers. This is making Americans simultaneously the biggest consumers of pharmaceuticals and the least informed on them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @09:17PM
This stuff is merely the modern day version of the old PT Barnum saying of "There's a sucker born every minute" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute).
The only real difference is that the 'con-man's reach' for taking advantage of those suckers is a lot farther now than it was circa 1879 when the phrase appears to have come into use (according to the wikipedia article).
Now, instead of having to travel to the suckers, and being limited in the numbers that can be conned by the slow travel time of that era., the con man of today can reach thousands of those same suckers instantly without ever leaving home.
But nothing's changed. If the con man of 1879 could have reached the number of suckers that they can reach today, there would have been just as many folks falling for the cons then as there are today.
The problem is that way too many suckers are out there, and they are way to easy to con. But how to educate those suckers so they are not suckers anymore is a much more difficult question to answer.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 07 2020, @09:18PM
It is mostly useless in the next 24. After that, it is officially useless, as is printed on the official piece of paper stuffed into every box of it. Go read it for yourself, and remember it well.
So, you either stock on the thing and learn when to self-medicate; or wait for the Word Of
GodDoctor, waste some money, and still suffer the complete unabridged influenza.How many people are educated enough to do the former? Were you, before reading this?
The TFA, while referring to tamiflu's side effects (which influenza has much more of IMO), does not talk of this catch. But it says that "two of her four children had been diagnosed with the flu and that the doctor had prescribed the antiviral Tamiflu for everyone in the household"; no one ever calls a doctor and receives a visit in the very first hours of infection, so, barring some miracle, the side effects, if any, would be the only effects of the prescription on the 2 already sick ones.
Maybe if the doctor was less concerned with supporting drug sales, and more with health of the patients, the mother would have gone and bought the one box that turned out to be critically needed later, and used it when it would do good. Maybe.
Science is not the thing you preach, or rave about, or follow mindlessly. Science is the knowledge that can help you make better decisions. If you take the knowledge out, you are left with a stupid cult.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Saturday February 08 2020, @01:17AM (1 child)
I suffered for 4 years with severe OCD as a teenager, because family was dead-set on using the 'natural' methods. As soon as I was put on real OCD meds, I got relief. We tried all the quack stuff, and I was too naive at the time to see it for the useless crap it was.
Natural medicine is actively harmful in most cases, because of its inefficacy. It's worse than nothing, because it gives you false hope and keeps you from looking for something that *could* help you.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @01:28AM
What does this have to do with taking industrial sourced ascorbate? Or tamiflu?
Both are totally non-natural.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 08 2020, @02:13AM (2 children)
I've been taking 2-3g of the stuff daily and am finding it makes a real difference in my energy, mood, and strength. But it's not some sort of miracle cure. Instead, I'd liken it to a lifestyle change or supplement: something to help the body do its job better, especially when put under stress.
Nutrition and medicine are both incredibly complicated, and complicated further by the fact that supplements blur the line. Everything affects everything else.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @11:59AM (1 child)
No one claims its a miracle cure except idiots like ikanread. It quenches free radicals and keeps your collagen sturdy. That's it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @12:44PM
Actually the two cis hydroxyls also chelate heavy metals making them easier to piss out so it detoxifies those too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08 2020, @01:20PM
Hi ikanread. You have grade 4 running laughter disease. That means you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are. Please leave us alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09 2020, @01:34AM (2 children)
Hm, looking at the article, I must admit, I agree that the mom should not have administered Tamiflu to the child.
Rather, she should have driven the kid to the FUCKING HOSPITAL AND LET THEM ADMINISTER IT. Seizure, geez. If I had a kid like that they'd be in the ER as fast as my car could get them there, assuming I decided not to go the ambulance route.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 09 2020, @05:22PM
Well, after heart disease and cancer avoidable errors at the hospital are the most likely thing to kill you: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html [cnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @11:34PM
Driving them yourself is almost always faster, but you gotta be sure moving them is safe and that medical help within 5-30 mins won't be the factor which saves their life.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday February 09 2020, @09:46PM (2 children)
You either think that the system you live in is interested in your good health, or that it doesn't care, or that it profits from your bad health.
If you fall in the first category, follow the procedures and protocols and have faith in them (in the worst case faith is the only actual weapon you have and it has no side effects, so make good use of it). But you don't belong to any discussion about alternative medicine.
Alternative medicine is for people who can't reconcile their reality with the official truth. Their reality being shaped by a statistic bubble or by a mental illness? too bad, let darwinism work or fuck off to China, if you prefer total control and prevention of all deviants. Sure it's not your utopia. But if you want the same here, it will eventually turn like China, so, why waste time.
What's about all the articles about vitamin C? Where's the money to follow? Isn't a rather generic stuff? snake oil dealers prefer exotic stuff, not what you can buy from whoever else.
Or, why would they promote it if it does not work? to make people weaker? There are thousands of better substances for the task. To make people poorer? about a thousand better methods.
Or maybe it's a flat earth theory? a preposterous lie so that any position against cover ups get tainted by association? But again vitamin C is not preposterous. It's as natural as water. Biologically we are assuming less vitamin c thanks to the, quite insane, way of cultivating veggies and fruit. So it even makes sense to get more of it.
Or maybe it's a "rock that keeps tigers away". OK we have a solution. Or rather you, because in my own experience the less I do for my health in terms of medicines, the stronger I am. So I am not even taking much vitamin supplements who abound in the home. Vit C works for me in terms of increased metabolism, so do omega 3 fatty stuff, but some lard or milk or salmon, not more than twice weekly, work great too.
Find your own hi quality diet first, rest second and supplements third, if they are placebos who cares, as long as they work.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @11:38AM (1 child)
Books, ad traffic...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday February 10 2020, @12:21PM
That was in the rock that keep tigers away hypothesis. Vit. C is not the mysterious substance you can justify buying a book for, it struggles to be on grandma's recipe book tier.
Account abandoned.