South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 15, 2019, 03:36:06 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Swine flu

 (Read 5667 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1538



WWW
« on: July 23, 2009, 19:46:30 PM »

I know very little about medicine but is this right or do I have it completely wrong? The Swine flu is called H1N1/09 but it's got a mortality rate of about 0.5%. Bird flu is also called H1N1 but it's got a far higher mortality rate, something like 40%. So if you get swine flu you (if you survive) will build up anti bodies and if you get Bird flu then stand a better chance. Sort of a natural vaccination?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2009, 13:37:35 PM »

Er no, bird flu’s pathogen is H5N1 while that of swine flu is H1N1.  H5N1 is a subtype (strain) of the influenza A virus, whereas H1N1 is a subtype of the influenza C virus.  In each case, a variant of the influenza virus is the pathogen (and hence the “flu” designation) but they are not the same virus.  Put simply (it’s a bit more complicated in reality), influenza viruses mutate fairly quickly and so auto-immunisation through fighting off a particular strain is only partly effective because the pathogens’ “signatures” change from season to season.  That’s also basically why we keep getting colds every year, more or less.

Anyway, something about pigs and flying springs to mind here but it might be construed as impish… Grin

'Luthon64
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1538



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2009, 13:45:57 PM »

Thanks. So we are going to die anyway?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2009, 13:52:55 PM »

Well, yes, one way or another, but not necessarily from a flu.  Older people have higher immunity to H1N1/09 than younger ones do, probably because they have been exposed to a wider range of related pathogens.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2009, 13:44:04 PM »

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1044915
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2009, 14:24:03 PM »

Its all over the place, the ex's stepson's got it and I'm watching the kids. I'm not overly concerned, at this point the statistics doesnt speak for much imo - I havent got it right at hand, but off my head we're looking at around 1 500 deaths and around a 190 000 odd diagnosed cases in the last six months worldwide, an average deathrate on the normal yearly flu is around 400 - 500 000.

This is not to say that next year's strain could be more virulent and annihilate the world population, which was indicative of the 1918 pandemic (and was oddly enough also a spring/summer flu) but what the hell, we're gonna die somewhere along the line anyway.  Grin

Anybody read Stephen King's "The Stand"?  Wink
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2009, 14:36:52 PM »

Loved "the Stand"

Saw a good one today:

"If a black man ever becomes president, pigs will fly"

100 days after the inauguration, swine flu

 Grin 
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2009, 14:51:24 PM »

Here's a fairly updated site with worldwide statistics on the swine flu.

http://www.theora.com/swineFlu/
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2009, 14:07:41 PM »

Interesting observation, the period from the 18th - 21st, an increase of some 23 000 reported cases worldwide, the first rather notable spike. Majority in US and Australia, and then SA tagging along with a 50% increase in just 7 days from 1400 cases to 3400 odd today.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2009, 14:42:08 PM »

… SA tagging along with a 50% increase in just 7 days from 1400 cases to 3400 odd today.
That’s exponential growth for you, apart from illustrating the danger of underestimating the threat at first, as people often do.  Lots of people with flu-like symptoms do not bother to have themselves properly diagnosed despite the health authorities’ advice to do so, thereby being selfishly irresponsible.

ETA: Er, that increase is actually almost 143%.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 17:16:25 PM by Mefiante, Reason: Figures, doesn’t it? » Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2009, 14:55:13 PM »

The balance between hysterics and responsible is a difficult one, both my sons had flu, (undiagnosed as swine but likely as their stepbrother was diagnosed and hospitalised two week prior)and I managed to secure an appointment with our doctors only 3 days later - I was told to take them to hospital should their condition worsen. They got over the worst before the appointment and was prescribed general antibiotics (I declined the test as I felt they were healing) although both are still a bit chesty, I'm keeping an eye on them - its been about a week now, and I'm confident they'll be fine.

The surgery were booked full with people coming in without an appointment queuing outside the doors with their healthy children in hand demanding Tamiflu. There are seven doctors consulting at this particular surgery and from word of mouth I understand its the case all over.
Logged
Mandarb
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 258



« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2009, 15:54:24 PM »

I had flu last week, and the doctor told me that the test took at least a week, and they treat it the same as normal flu anyway. So I got some antibiotics, cough syrup and decongestants, and was booked off for the week. Am mostly fine now, except I'm coughing still.

I still don't understand why anti-biotics are prescribed for viruses, and I never think to ask the doctor. Anybody know?
Logged
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2009, 16:06:18 PM »

Can't understand why theists Queue at the doctors surgery though. Mean to say, there’s lots of space in Churches to say prayers 6 days a week, no need to wait in a Queue (accept on the 7th day), pay 10% of your income(if it’s cheaper than your medical), you’re covered for the entire month against Swine flu and perhaps score a car out of the deal  Wink
Logged
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2009, 16:17:37 PM »

I still don't understand why anti-biotics are prescribed for viruses, and I never think to ask the doctor. Anybody know?

I seldom get the flu, I am more susceptible to getting colds, bacterial infections (usually tonsillitis, pharyngitis, those sorts of locations) and when I do I only go in when it seems that it is only getting worse and not levelling-off or improving.  I am used to getting antibiotics from my GP because of this.  Once, when I did just have a flu infection, I was prescribed an antibiotic.  I didn't ask, I didn't need to because my doctor is very good at volunteering explanations for his diagnoses, he said that there was a chest sound that might indicate there was an opportunistic bacteria setting-up shop which could rapidly become full-blown bronchitis.  It was a precautionary measure because my immune system was busy fighting the flu and wouldn't be able to effectively deal with the bacterial invader.

Nice anecdote, but what does it mean?

From a sample of one (1) flu infection treated with antibiotics I am able to extrapolate that all doctors everywhere only do this when there is an identified risk of bacterial infection which could thrive while the immune system is compromised. Wink

Do we have any doctors here who might be able to provide a more official answer?  It's hard, I know, to say what every doctor would do, but I'm also curious if the reasoning is the same for the other doctors who have prescribed antibiotics for patients presenting with flu.  Would anyone do so, as a matter of course, without there being evidence of bacterial infection?

James
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2009, 16:39:10 PM »

I still don't understand why anti-biotics are prescribed for viruses, and I never think to ask the doctor. Anybody know?
Indeed, antibiotics are ineffective against viruses.  However, doctors prescribe them in cases of viral infection in order to prevent or obviate the effects of secondary infections since the immune system is already taxed with fighting off the primary one.  In other words, it’s a proactive step that has as benefits (a) that the immune system doesn’t need to deal with additional threats; (b) that it makes the patient (and doctor, too) feel better for having some medication prescribed, and (c) that it supports the pharmaceutical industry, quite besides building more resilient bacteria.

(Point (c) is why people at times call me “cynical,” if can you believe that!)

'Luthon64
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2009, 17:18:28 PM »

 
Quote from: Mefiante
However, doctors prescribe them in cases of viral infection in order to prevent or obviate the effects of secondary infections since the immune system is already taxed with fighting off the primary one.


This is the reason my doctor gives me too. I don't take anti-biotics unless I really,really have to - i.e. only if I'm at death's door.
Anyway, isn't the overuse of anti-biotics responsible for drug resistant strains of diseases? That and the fact that people don't finish their prescriptions.

I think people just need to be sensible and use their common sense when it come to swine flu, going to your doctor and demanding Tamiflu for healthy children is a little silly, taking an anti viral has side effects. I've heard that the test for H1N1 is also very expensive, so unnecessary money and time is being wasted testing "regular" cases, instead of testing the people who really matter - the ones who have other factors that may increase the severity of the flu for them.

mdg
Logged
AcinonyxScepticus
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 234



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2009, 17:46:23 PM »

... going to your doctor and demanding Tamiflu for healthy children is a little silly, taking an anti viral has side effects.
Not only that, but taking a healthy child to a waiting room full of infected people is, to me, counter-intuitive and probably counter-productive if their GP decides to dissuade them from their idea and the child happens to pick something (else) up.

James
Logged
Fluxosaurus
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2009, 20:06:05 PM »

I still don't understand why anti-biotics are prescribed for viruses, and I never think to ask the doctor. Anybody know?
Indeed, antibiotics are ineffective against viruses.  However, doctors prescribe them in cases of viral infection in order to prevent or obviate the effects of secondary infections since the immune system is already taxed with fighting off the primary one.  In other words, it’s a proactive step that has as benefits (a) that the immune system doesn’t need to deal with additional threats; (b) that it makes the patient (and doctor, too) feel better for having some medication prescribed, and (c) that it supports the pharmaceutical industry, quite besides building more resilient bacteria.

(Point (c) is why people at times call me “cynical,” if can you believe that!)

'Luthon64

Interesting to do some Google research on this issue of antibiotics.

I found this site listing a study, seeming to support the notion of prescribing antibiotics for respiratory tract infection:
http://www.chestjournal.org/content/135/5/1163.abstract

This would seem to provide support for Mefiante's point (a), but when you see that it was written by

"Dr. Winchester {who} is employed as a medical writer by Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd. "
then one is inclined to see more credence in Mefiante's point (c), cynicism not withstanding :-)

It reminds me to be observant of the source of a particular claim or piece of information - it does not obviate the contribution of that information outright, but it requires that we weight it accordingly, and with recognition of possible bias and vested interest on the part of the writer.

They do go on to say that "Dr. Macfarlane has reported to the ACCP that no significant conflicts of interest exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.", but that does not provide a great degree of comfort and reduce my level of caution about possible bias.

Further on this point though, the resource lists various levels of confidence - 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92 - and this would indicate that there is more science here, the possibility of obtaining the original research, and the possibility of reproducing the study to re-test the veracity of the claim / result. And this is precisely what I love about science - that it is open, and grows in complexity, yet gets us closer to some greater point of understanding - small incremental steps towards the truth, but never so definite that it becomes dogmatic and blind to new information.

It would seem that antibiotics are indeed overprescribed:

"Conclusions  The use of prescription antibiotics far outweighs the predicted incidence of bacterial causes of acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. Frequency of antibiotic class used was not congruent with reported antimicrobial efficacy of the respective classes. Despite contradictory efficacies reported in the literature, inhaled corticosteroids were frequently used to treat acute rhinosinusitis. Antibiotics and inhaled nasal corticosteroids are being used more often than their published efficacies would encourage." http://archotol.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/3/260

But the reason why this is necessarily a bad thing is still unclear to me at least.

I can understand that perhaps the population represents a context / environment into which we are pumping all these antibiotics, unintentionally selecting against current (possibly weak strains) and selecting for super kick ass, killer strains that have not evolved yet. So at a population level, over a long period of time perhaps, this is a dangerous practice, but humans are notoriously in the market for instant gratification, hence the feeding of the psychological need for both the patient and doctor to feel prescribed for and effective, respectively.

I have tried both methods - not taking them when under the attack of a cold (long duration, utter misery, extreme drop in productivity, grumpy like a bear too), and taking them (with an accompanying dose of decongestants) which usually means shorter duration, and less symptoms, and the added promise of the prevention of secondary infections.
I have not tried just the decongestants - perhaps an experiment for next time.

The promised benefit of NOT promoting the creation of drug resistant strains seems to be a distant, population benefit, whereas the promise of less symptoms, and a greater degree of comfort for the patient, strikes me as a localised, immediate effect - I will leave the reader to decide which of these forces are more likely to motivate behaviour in the general populace.

Logged
Fluxosaurus
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2009, 20:19:50 PM »

Another reason to always suspend judgement until a wide ranging set of research has been done.

Check this out - this site had some interesting claims about antibiotic resistance:

http://www.silver-colloids.com/Pubs/antibiotic-resistance.html

But when I saw this I felt unease:
"Support The Health Freedom Protection Act - FDA and FTC Censorship robs the American people of health information indispensable to their exercise of freedom of choice. FDA and FTC Censorship benefits large drug companies by protecting them from competition and destroying innovation. The solution lies in a new law, one that will strip FDA and FTC of their censorship powers."
Bottom of the page - http://www.silver-colloids.com/Reports/reports.html

Then Wikipedia adds momentum to my skepticism:

"From approximately 1990, especially with the emerging problem of antibiotic resistance [2], there has been a resurgence of the promotion of colloidal silver as an alternative medicine treatment, marketed with claims that it can prevent or treat numerous diseases.[9] In vitro evidence of an antimicrobial effect of colloidal silver is mixed; some studies have found it to lack any antibacterial effect,[10] while others have reported colloidal solutions of 5-30ppm as being effective against staph and e.coli[11][12] There are no clinical trials showing that any preparation of colloidal silver is effective in vivo.[1]

Colloidal silver products are legally available at health food stores in the United States and Australia and are marketed over the Internet as a dietary supplement. It is illegal in the U.S. and Australia for marketers to make claims of medical effectiveness for colloidal silver, but some websites still list its use for the prevention of colds and flu, and the treatment of more serious conditions such as diabetes, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis, among other diseases.[13][14] There is no medical evidence that colloidal silver is effective for any of these claimed indications.[15][16] Silver is not an essential mineral in humans; there is no dietary requirement for silver, and no such thing as a silver "deficiency".[1]

Currently, there are no evidence-based medical uses for ingested colloidal silver. There are no clinical studies in humans demonstrating effectiveness, and several reports of toxicity.[3] The U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has issued an advisory indicating that the marketing claims made about colloidal silver are scientifically unsupported, and that the silver content of marketed supplements varies widely and can pose risks to the consumer.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloidal_silver

Well, lets just say I wont be buying any of that sh!t just yet!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2009, 10:56:28 AM »

The reason why the overuse of antibiotics is detrimental becomes clear when one considers what it takes to get a new drug to market.  The financial investment (time, expertise, technology) by the large pharmaceutical companies is considerable, as are the scientific, social, safety and legal requirements and hurdles that need to be met and overcome.  Needless to add, drug companies are not in the business of altruism; they are primarily in the business of making money for their shareholders, however unpalatable some might find that reality.  I mean, there’s something a little sordid and jaded about making money off the illness or debility of another, isn’t there?

Antibiotic overuse (and not completing a course of antibiotics) not only promotes but also accelerates the emergence of ever more resistant bacteria, and this acceleration cannot be adequately countered with the usual timeframes and strictures involved in drug development.  Thus, it is to everyone’s benefit if the inadvertent culturing of superbugs is delayed for as long as possible.  In this regard, the case of tuberculosis is instructive: how many people in Africa and Asia will prematurely die of MDR or XDR TB strains because there is presently no drug available to combat a disease that had not long ago been thought virtually eradicated?

One also needs to ask how much one wants to pay for effective medicines, assuming that they are available in the first place.  The drug development lead-time and cost are clearly factors here, as are the useful lifetime of the antibiotic and economy-of-scale considerations.  An antibiotic that can remain on the shelves longer can be manufactured more cheaply in greater quantity, and consequently sold at lower cost, which can be even further reduced because the recoupment period can be extended.  Moreover, a longer-lived drug frees up research resources to investigate the varieties of superbug that an antibiotic might lead to, and so to begin early with pre-emptive development of appropriate medicines.

The bottom line is that antibiotic overuse is greatly aggravated by severely delayed reaction in bringing about new drugs and also because in this context drug development is presently reactive rather than proactive.

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.807 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 11, 2019, 21:00:08 PM
Privacy Policy