Facebook has resources for anti-vax: Facebook under pressure to halt rise of anti-vaccination groups | Technology | The Guardian
Really, one tries hard not to put on an MD hat in this forum. It is rarely relevant, but mattered in this instance. Priuschat is a welcome escape with many fascinating and intelligent non-medical (and some medical) topics and contributors.
I'll take that 'like' as assent. About my Morgellon's, doc ... (AFAIK Joni Mitchell never sang "I've got you under my skin")
Hah, guess this guy is lucky to not be a dermatologist or psychiatrist. But with your job there could be a true physiologic reason to have such symptoms. Sounds like some lab and field work could have been an episode for Mike Rowe from “Dirty Jobs”.
I apologize for joking about Morgellon's. It causes real suffering regardless of etiology. Further irrelevant to this discussion, a very painful psoriasis in palm of hand only resolved when a Verruca wart popped up adjacent. I have never found any discussion of such connections. If something pops up that the local acupuncturists and what not cannot deal with. I'll let you know.
how is the influenza this year? i haven't seen much in the news, or bob's annual report, or know of anyone who has suffered such.
WaPo has a good summary of the latest CDC data and covers several points in this thread (a few salient points bolded by me): This season’s flu vaccine reduces the need to go to the doctor’s office by about half, according to figures released Thursday... ...The vaccine also works better overall than last year and is even more effective — about 61 percent — in children, who are among the groups most vulnerable to flu-related complications... But the vaccine has not provided any measurable protection for older adults, with only an 8 percent reduction in the need for medical attention for flu, according to preliminary estimates.... ...“We don’t see as much disease in our study group of 50 and older population.. ...This season’s strain tends to affect children more than other age groups. ...During past seasons, approximately 80 percent of pediatric flu deaths have been in children who were not vaccinated. ...Preliminary figures released Thursday suggest the vaccine is 47 percent effective in reducing a person’s risk of becoming sick enough to need to see a doctor. A final estimate for last season showed the vaccine was about 40 percent effective... Even in a good year, the flu vaccine is never as effective as most other vaccines. When the vaccine is well matched to circulating viruses, its effectiveness is about 60 percent. (The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, by comparison, is about 97 percent effective with two doses.)... ...The vaccine can reduce flu illness and hospitalizations, protect pregnant women during and after pregnancy, and be lifesaving in children.... Interim Estimates of 2018–19 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2019 | MMWR https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/02/14/this-years-flu-vaccine-is-doing-well-deaths-are-still-high/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0854e3a8135c
For those inclined towards CDC's view of things, see also Weekly U.S. Influenza Surveillance Report | CDC seasonal incidence is peaking or will soon. Statewise maps are about 2/3 down page. If one resides in red or orange color, and not yet vaccinated, it might still be worth considering. Last phrase was a personal editorial, but elsewhere in CDC land one could find similar advice.
Science is catching up with what I learned at a vitamin D seminar over 10 years ago. Vitamin D protects against colds and flu, finds major global study -- ScienceDaily Supplementation worked the best with people who had the lowest levels (duh!). This study was just the first one that popped up with a google of "vitamin D flu". http://www.grassrootshealth.org is a good resource for anything vitamin D.
Thanks for posting that. Two notes: it is not paywalled. study was of severe respiratory infections, not influenza in particular. Influenza vaccination status was one of the analyzed variables, however.
In that study Table S4 was interesting to me. It showed beneficial effects above 25 nanomoles per liter blood level (below that is nutritional deficiency of vitamin D). Then flat responses for higher, then again benefit above 75 nanomoles per liter. This would point at least to suggestion that folks in general ought to shoot for 75 or a bit higher. I recall RobH has direct experience with this: What amount of D do you take, and what blood level results? I think you said it before in another thread but it merits repeating.
We did delve into measles above and I have a reason for returning. Measles begins as a tracheal infection, lacking strong symptoms It is highly infectious then, even before the red splotches appear on skin. I wonder if there has been any attempt to examine whether vitamin D limits infectiousness during this early stage? Medical ethics prevents giving people measles for study purposes, but there may be clever ways to look for effects short of that.
The best recommendation that I can point to was developed by Carol Bagerly, the founder of GrassRoots Health. She coordinated a consensus of 70 researchers into agreeing that a vitamin D blood level of 40 to 60 nanograms/milliliter (100-150 nanomoles/liter) as the optimum target. That was over 10 years ago, and I notice that Ms Bagerly personally takes 10,000 IU per day and has a blood level of 70 ng/ml. I take 20,000 IU/day, and my last test was 116 ng/ml. I took 50,000 IU/day for several years, and a blood level that settled at just over 200 ng/ml. Note that, as of that seminar 10 years ago, there were zero documented cases of vitamin D toxicity at blood levels under 200 ng/ml. There have been several documented cases where 1,000,000 IU/day caused problems after several months. The problem seems to have been confusion between mg and mcg. One mg of vitamin D3 is 40,000 IU. Nobody seemed to notice the price impact of using a thousand times as much active ingredient. Guess the label on the bottle cost more... Mr. Google turned up an interesting piece about the potential for using vitamin D as an adjuvant in measles vaccine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4913549/ Makes business sense, but I think I'll stay with the active ingredient, vitamin D.
I'm only now troubled by respiratory infections and so see 'D' as a thing. Not for me, but Acesa offers for $65 Vitamin D Test - Vitamin D3 Blood Test | Accesa Labs ® We might, abruptly, suggest that all should have 100 nmol/L in blood. It may be in low-sun months that supplements are needed to get that. Yet to be posted here is evidence that more D is helpful. Weak epidemiological evidence suggests that too-high D weakens bones and forms kidney stones. You don't want thatt.
There's been about 8 measles cases locally, kids at one or two schools: Health officials confirm measles outbreak in Vancouver after 8th case identified | CBC News
Here's an interesting article that seems relevant to this discussion: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf?fbclid=IwAR02N-tgVNI_v6hfTFFoWeGgeRnSVt_w2UbfZZUlydHlX1LA0bpCR0moGRw