How one unvaccinated child sparked Minnesota measles outbreak

[Jimmi]

As far as you know.

Profits or financial interests have to be disclosed by law in published work.

 

[Barcham]

Whatever you do, don't take him to a 3rd world country and out of his safety barrier of vaccinated kids just like the family in the OP did.

Many countries require proof of certain vaccinations to be granted a visa. I hope his kid doesn't plan on doing any extensive travelling when he grows up.

 

[LowThudd]

So...if you take the box out of lunchbox you get= Out To Lunch. Just a guess

 

[cybermgk]

You're probably right, since big pharmaceutical corporations that have an obligation to show growth and profit to their shareholders will invariably be 100% forthright and honest with the public. Why would I ever assume differently?

It's bad science and logic is all dude. The point is, it is a fallacy to say "event a caused outcome B", without any causal evidence linking the two other than that event a happened. Because there are a myriad of other 'events' that also ocurred, and every bit as possible to be the cause. This is specially true when considering one of the complex of all systems, the human body.

If you can't see the inherent fallacy in that kind of thinking, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[dangerdog]

I am board certified in two areas of medicine with a PhD in neuroscience. I have had 4 NIH and NSF supported grants and have several primary authored publications. Why do you think it was so easy for me to find the papers? It is part of my field.

Care to list your credentials other than reading a couple of blogs?

I doubt he is that well read. Sounds like Zendik Farm to me.

 

[cybermgk]

Sorry, but night shift janitor at a pediatric office doesn't count.

wow, a personal attack, classy. not.

 

[cybermgk]

No thx. I'm good.

Our 5 y/o son was breast fed for 5 years, and has never been vaccinated. He's the healthiest kid we know. And he's especially healthier than our friend's children that have been vaccinated. Those kids are always getting sick. lol

 

[Deus Vult]

another healthcare professional with a doctorate (though not as prestigious as that dirty 1%er Jimmi ).

what the fvck is this shit?

 

[Comanche]

Playboy model or doctor which advice to take regarding vaccines? For me no brainier. Bigger tits always wins?

 

[Barcham]

Both?

This thread is going in the dumper anyways, so... what the hell?

 

[Jimmi]

another healthcare professional with a doctorate (though not as prestigious as that dirty 1%er Jimmi ).

what the fvck is this shit?

What capacity?

It isn't that I think it shouldn't have been investigated. A pilot study showed a possible correlation, it is reasonable to look into. The issue is that the evidence has not borne out a causal relationship meaning that you are much more at risk not getting the vaccinations than taking them.

A real problem is our media that now competes for eyeballs 24/7 needs to attract viewers so they look for any thing that could be perceived as news regardless of evidence etc and parade celebrities as experts because people tune in. Then, they never follow the stories up with the real evidence or experts or if they do, they conduct it in a confrontational Format with lazy journalism that never investigates the real evidence. It then gets entered into blogs etc as truth, then read by curious but uniformed or experience people who are drawn to conspiracy theories and gleam their own "truth" who perpetuate it. It is like listening to your grandparents discussing teen trends. equally clueless.

 

[LowThudd]

What capacity?

It isn't that I think it shouldn't have been investigated. A pilot study showed a possible correlation, it is reasonable to look into. The issue is that the evidence has not borne out a causal relationship meaning that you are much more at risk not getting the vaccinations than avoiding them.

A real problem is our media that now competes for eyeballs 24/7 needs to attract viewers so they look for any thing that could be perceived as news regardless of evidence etc and parade celebrities as experts because people tune in. Then, they never follow the stories up with the real evidence or experts or if they do, they conduct it in a confrontational Format with lazy journalism that never investigates the real evidence. It then gets entered into blogs etc as truth, then read by curious but uniformed or experience people who are drawn to conspiracy theories and gleam their own "truth" who perpetuate it. It is like listening to your grandparents discussing teen trends. equally clueless.

Media sensationalism always effes up any situation. Especially these days with the internetz. "'cauz the internetz never liez!

 

[ben.jammin]

See other papers I have copied. Not just one. You should also read the one discribing what underlies the psychology of vaccine scares.

Give up. You have as much chance of changing his mind as you do of finding a '59 burst at a garage sale for $50.

(Sorry I couldn't resist)

 

[WaywerdSon]

A real problem is our media that now competes for eyeballs 24/7 needs to attract viewers so they look for any thing that could be perceived as news regardless of evidence etc and parade

The average moron in the audience just accepts whatever the blond bimbo on the local news tells them, and never bother to apply any critical thinking. For example, lets say you have a 1 in one million chance of dying from Blomadrosis. If you are exposed to chemical A, you now have a 1 in 500K chance. Still not really worth getting bent over. But when assignment reporter bimbo Sally bats her eyes and says "Chemical A exposure DOUBLES your risk of dying", well, that scares people and they will tune in to see what they can do so they won't die. The actual odds of dying are never mentioned. But scaring people gets eyeballs on the screen. And eyeballs on the screen makes ad rates go up.

 

[randelli]

All that said, there is a growing number of people who insist on believing hocus pocus Internet blogs or idiot celebrities instead of their doctors.

Probably because doctors mainly know how to write prescriptions and cut things out of people. Any other alternative is not profitable and therefore only practiced by the lunatic fringe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFVMMCwsss]Red Rider - Lunatic Fringe - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jimmi]

Really? Never "alternative treatmentsinvestigated by mainstream medicine? If they did you would expect retospective and cohort reviews and at least some clinical trials right? Please see the below published trials most of which are from JAMA, not because I think it is the only journal but because it is as mainstream as it gets. Everyone is open maybe even hopeful that some of the alternative medicines could show efficacy. That includes drug companies who could isolate the active ingredients and maybe improve them.

There are numerous trails actively going not investigating everything from herbals to acupuncture. Many have shown not to have efficacy over Placebo and some have risks which is why many doctors probably exercise caution.

Stop drinking the cool aid put out there by largely uniformed amature physicians whose only education are web searches and hanging out with the local yoga instructor.

Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicin... [Pediatr Rev. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI


Pediatr Rev. 2013 Aug;34(8):343-52; quiz 352-3. doi: 10.1542/pir.34-8-343.
Complementary, holistic, and integrative medicine: advice for clinicians on herbs and breastfeeding.
Budzynska K1, Gardner ZE, Low Dog T, Gardiner P.
Author information

Abstract
The use of herbal remedies is a tradition held in many cultures throughout the world, and women may use herbal remedies during lactation. Because of the limitations of the current literature, it is difficult to develop accurate information on the safety and efficacy of specific herbs used during breastfeeding. It is critical that more research is conducted in this area, including national prevalence studies and safety and efficacy studies.

Effect of increasing doses of saw palmetto extract on l... [JAMA. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

JAMA. 2011 Sep 28;306(12):1344-51. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1364.
Effect of increasing doses of saw palmetto extract on lower urinary tract symptoms: a randomized trial.
Barry MJ1, Meleth S, Lee JY, Kreder KJ, Avins AL, Nickel JC, Roehrborn CG, Crawford ED, Foster HE Jr, Kaplan SA, McCullough A, Andriole GL, Naslund MJ, Williams OD, Kusek JW, Meyers CM, Betz JM, Cantor A, McVary KT; Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Urological Symptoms (CAMUS) Study Group.
Collaborators (60)

Author information

Abstract
CONTEXT:
Saw palmetto fruit extracts are widely used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH); however, recent clinical trials have questioned their efficacy, at least at standard doses (320 mg/d).
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the effect of saw palmetto extract (Serenoa repens, from saw palmetto berries) at up to 3 times the standard dose on lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to BPH.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial at 11 North American clinical sites conducted between June 5, 2008, and October 10, 2010, of 369 men aged 45 years or older, with a peak urinary flow rate of at least 4 mL/s, an American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI) score of between 8 and 24 at 2 screening visits, and no exclusions.
INTERVENTIONS:
One, 2, and then 3 doses (320 mg/d) of saw palmetto extract or placebo, with dose increases at 24 and 48 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Difference in AUASI score between baseline and 72 weeks. Secondary outcomes included measures of urinary bother, nocturia, peak uroflow, postvoid residual volume, prostate-specific antigen level, participants' global assessments, and indices of sexual function, continence, sleep quality, and prostatitis symptoms.
RESULTS:
Between baseline and 72 weeks, mean AUASI scores decreased from 14.42 to 12.22 points (-2.20 points; 95% CI, -3.04 to -0.36) with saw palmetto extract and from 14.69 to 11.70 points (-2.99 points; 95% CI, -3.81 to -2.17) with placebo. The group mean difference in AUASI score change from baseline to 72 weeks between the saw palmetto extract and placebo groups was 0.79 points favoring placebo (upper bound of the 1-sided 95% CI most favorable to saw palmetto extract was 1.77 points, 1-sided P = .91). Saw palmetto extract was no more effective than placebo for any secondary outcome. No clearly attributable adverse effects were identified.
CONCLUSION:
Increasing doses of a saw palmetto fruit extract did not reduce lower urinary tract symptoms more than placebo.

Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) for attention-def... [JAMA. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

JAMA. 2008 Jun 11;299(22):2633-41. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.22.2633.
Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
Weber W1, Vander Stoep A, McCarty RL, Weiss NS, Biederman J, McClellan J.
Author information

Abstract
CONTEXT:
Stimulant medication can effectively treat 60% to 70% of youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Yet many parents seek alternative therapies, and Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) is 1 of the top 3 botanicals used.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the efficacy and safety of H. perforatum for the treatment of ADHD in children.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between March 2005 and August 2006 at Bastyr University, Kenmore, Washington, among a volunteer sample of 54 children aged 6 to 17 years who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria for ADHD by structured interview.
INTERVENTION:
After a placebo run-in phase of 1 week, participants were randomly assigned to receive 300 mg of H. perforatum standardized to 0.3% hypericin (n = 27) or a matched placebo (n = 27) 3 times daily for 8 weeks. Other medications for ADHD were not allowed during the trial.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Performance on the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (range, 0-54) and Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (range, 0-7), and adverse events.
RESULTS:
One patient in the placebo group withdrew because of an adverse event. No significant difference was found in the change in ADHD Rating Scale-IV scores from baseline to week 8 between the treatment and placebo groups: inattentiveness improved 2.6 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.6 to -0.6 points) with H. perforatum vs 3.2 points (95% CI, -5.7 to -0.8 points) with placebo (P = .68) and hyperactivity improved 1.8 points (95% CI, -3.7 to 0.1 points) with H. perforatum vs 2.0 points (95% CI, -4.1 to 0.1 points) with placebo (P = .89). There was also no significant difference between the 2 groups in the percentage of participants who met criteria for improvement (score < or = 2) on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (H. perforatum, 44.4%; 95% CI, 25.5%-64.7% vs placebo, 51.9%; 95% CI, 31.9%-71.3%; P = .59). No difference between groups was found in the number of participants who experienced adverse effects during the study period (H. perforatum, 40.7%; 95% CI, 22.4%-61.2% vs placebo, 44.4%; 95% CI, 25.5%-64.7%; P = .78).
CONCLUSION:
In this study, use of H. perforatum for treatment of ADHD over the course of 8 weeks did not improve symptoms.


JAMA. 2002 Apr 10;287(14):1807-14.
Effect of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) in major depressive disorder: a randomized controlled trial.
Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group.
Abstract
CONTEXT:
Extracts of Hypericum perforatum (St John's wort) are widely used for the treatment of depression of varying severity. Their efficacy in major depressive disorder, however, has not been conclusively demonstrated.
OBJECTIVE:
To test the efficacy and safety of a well-characterized H perforatum extract (LI-160) in major depressive disorder.
DESIGN AND SETTING:
Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 12 academic and community psychiatric research clinics in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS:
Adult outpatients (n = 340) recruited between December 1998 and June 2000 with major depression and a baseline total score on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) of at least 20.
INTERVENTIONS:
Patients were randomly assigned to receive H perforatum, placebo, or sertraline (as an active comparator) for 8 weeks. Based on clinical response, the daily dose of H perforatum could range from 900 to 1500 mg and that of sertraline from 50 to 100 mg. Responders at week 8 could continue blinded treatment for another 18 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Change in the HAM-D total score from baseline to 8 weeks; rates of full response, determined by the HAM-D and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scores.
RESULTS:
On the 2 primary outcome measures, neither sertraline nor H perforatum was significantly different from placebo. The random regression parameter estimate for mean (SE) change in HAM-D total score from baseline to week 8 (with a greater decline indicating more improvement) was -9.20 (0.67) (95% confidence interval [CI], -10.51 to -7.89) for placebo vs -8.68 (0.68) (95% CI, -10.01 to -7.35) for H perforatum (P =.59) and -10.53 (0.72) (95% CI, -11.94 to -9.12) for sertraline (P =.18). Full response occurred in 31.9% of the placebo-treated patients vs 23.9% of the H perforatum-treated patients (P =.21) and 24.8% of sertraline-treated patients (P =.26). Sertraline was better than placebo on the CGI improvement scale (P =.02), which was a secondary measure in this study. Adverse-effect profiles for H perforatum and sertraline differed relative to placebo.
CONCLUSION:
This study fails to support the efficacy of H perforatum in moderately severe major depression. The result may be due to low assay sensitivity of the trial, but the complete absence of trends suggestive of efficacy for H perforatum is noteworthy.


Efficacy and safety of echinacea in treating upper resp... [JAMA. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290(21):2824-30.
Efficacy and safety of echinacea in treating upper respiratory tract infections in children: a randomized controlled trial.
Taylor JA1, Weber W, Standish L, Quinn H, Goesling J, McGann M, Calabrese C.
Author information

Abstract
CONTEXT:
Echinacea is a widely used herbal remedy for treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URIs). However, there are few data on the efficacy and safety of echinacea in treating URIs in children.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine if Echinacea purpurea is effective in reducing the duration and/or severity of URI symptoms in children and to assess its safety in this population.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy children 2 to 11 years old recruited from a regional practice-based network and an alternative medical center in 4-month periods from 2000 through 2002.
INTERVENTIONS:
Study patients were randomized to receive either echinacea or placebo for up to 3 URIs over a 4-month period. Study medication was begun at the onset of symptoms and continued throughout the URI, for a maximum of 10 days.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Primary outcomes were duration and severity of symptoms and adverse events recorded by parents; secondary outcomes included peak severity of symptoms, number of days of peak severity, number of days of fever, and a global assessment of severity of symptoms by parents of study children.
RESULTS:
Data were analyzed on 707 URIs that occurred in 407 children, including 337 URIs treated with echinacea and 370 with placebo. There were 79 children who completed their study period without having a URI. The median duration of URIs was 9 days (95% confidence interval, 8-10 days); there was no difference in duration between URIs treated with echinacea or placebo (P =.89). There was also no difference in the overall estimate of severity of URI symptoms between the 2 treatment groups (median, 33 in both groups; P =.69). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups for peak severity of symptoms (P =.68), number of days of peak symptoms (1.60 in the echinacea group and 1.64 in the placebo group; P =.97), number of days of fever (0.81 in the echinacea group vs 0.64 in the placebo group; P =.09), or parental global assessment of severity of the URI (P =.67). Overall, there was no difference in the rate of adverse events reported in the 2 treatment groups; however, rash occurred during 7.1% of the URIs treated with echinacea and 2.7% of those treated with placebo (P =.008).
CONCLUSIONS:
Echinacea purpurea, as dosed in this study, was not effective in treating URI symptoms in patients 2 to 11 years old, and its use was associated with an increased risk of rash.

NIH Consensus Conference. Acupuncture. [JAMA. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI

JAMA. 1998 Nov 4;280(17):1518-24.
NIH Consensus Conference. Acupuncture.
[No authors listed]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To provide clinicians, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of the use and effectiveness of acupuncture to treat a variety of conditions.
PARTICIPANTS:
A nonfederal, nonadvocate, 12-member panel representing the fields of acupuncture, pain, psychology, psychiatry, physical medicine and rehabilitation, drug abuse, family practice, internal medicine, health policy, epidemiology, statistics, physiology, biophysics, and the representatives of the public. In addition, 25 experts from these same fields presented data to the panel and a conference audience of 1200. Presentations and discussions were divided into 3 phases over 2 1/2 days: (1) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the consensus questions during a 2-day public session; (2) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that were part of the public session; and (3) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. The conference was organized and supported by the Office of Alternative Medicine and the Office of Medical Applications of Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.
EVIDENCE:
The literature, produced from January 1970 to October 1997, was searched through MEDLINE, Allied and Alternative Medicine, EMBASE, and MANTIS, as well as through a hand search of 9 journals that were not indexed by the National Library of Medicine. An extensive bibliography of 2302 references was provided to the panel and the conference audience. Expert speakers prepared abstracts of their own conference presentations with relevant citations from the literature. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience.
CONSENSUS PROCESS:
The panel, answering predefined questions, developed their conclusions based on the scientific evidence presented in the open forum and scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement, which was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. The draft statement was made available on the World Wide Web immediately following its release at the conference and was updated with the panel's final revisions within a few weeks of the conference. The statement is available at NIH Consensus Development Program.
CONCLUSIONS:
Acupuncture as a therapeutic intervention is widely practiced in the United States. Although there have been many studies of its potential usefulness, many of these studies provide equivocal results because of design, sample size, and other factors. The issue is further complicated by inherent difficulties in the use of appropriate controls, such as placebos and sham acupuncture groups. However, promising results have emerged, for example, showing efficacy of acupuncture in adult postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting and in postoperative dental pain. There are other situations, such as addiction, stroke rehabilitation, headache, menstrual cramps, tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and asthma, in which acupuncture may be useful as an adjunct treatment or an acceptable alternative or be included in a comprehensive management program. Further research is likely to uncover additional areas where acupuncture interventions will be useful.

 

[lǎo​wài]

No thx. I'm good.

Our 5 y/o son was breast fed for 5 years, and has never been vaccinated. He's the healthiest kid we know. And he's especially healthier than our friend's children that have been vaccinated. Those kids are always getting sick. lol

Know what? I'm gonna leave this here.

 

[lǎo​wài]

Both?

This thread is going in the dumper anyways, so... what the hell?

Nooo. Let it live for posterity.

 

[Ermghoti]

False.

If anything, there's more supporting evidence than ever.

Why, that's a real nice study you've got there. It would be a shame if, somebody were to, you know... peer review it.

 

[DHBucker]

Oh geez, here we go again.

Jimi is a physician.... Physician trumps standard Internet forum members....