-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
CARLSBADROLEX said:
Sure. Always glad to talk shop.
I did neglect to mention the high proportion of pharmaceutical company 'skeptics' on this thread. I used skeptics to be nice to you all.
I work for one of those big companies and I just want to say...be afraid.....be very afraid.
:mrgreen:
The Pharmaceutical business is great. You can make a drug that treats oh let's say Navritalova virus. And it doesn't even matter if it works.
LOL - a friend of mine was a PhD research scientist for pharmaceuticals - she went back and also got her JD, now she patents them. I say, keep the economy strong "Buy pharmaceuticals".
P.S.: A PhD in immunology - holy moley that's some good studying
P.S.: A PhD in immunology - holy moley that's some good studying
I agree, its pretty incredible to have someone like TagFan in our community. HELL, the big networks are calling every doctor they have on staff to be on TV today. I would be surprised if ANY of them are specialists in immunology. I WOULD NOT be surprised if they were all veterinarians!
The flu names used to be named for the country of origin. Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, etc... why don't we call this the Mexican flu? :?
They have determined that it is a hybrid of the Avian, Swine and Influenza virus. So I guess they should call it the 'Bad Mutherfucker' strain.
fakemaster said:
...which means I am probably safe from getting it. Plus, I have an added immunity from drinking plenty of gutter water as a kid.
- 15/4/07
- 14,908
- 56
- 48
fakemaster said:
Well I guess it's better than that Russian one, "Rotturcockoff"
@ Cybee, gutter water is the very good compared to the golf course pond water we used to drink growing up. Add some gator and snapping turtle threats and I call it home. :wink:
fakemaster said:
Its really quite interesting when you consider the possibilities. Its an H1N1 virus, which is common, except not in its current form. They think that some birds from Europe ended up infecting some pigs in Mexico, and the farm workers eventually became infected.
Rearrangement of the virus' makeup can take place when this type of zoonosis happens, and then you get 'new' virus containing human influenza, pig influenza and avian influenza RNA. This may be why its not as deadly in the US as it was in Mexico. Either way, there was a good article just published in the New York Times on the issue, from both sides. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ?ref=world
Brings to mind a question we used to get in school. What do you think is the most common gene found in the human genetic code? Its actually not a human gene at all - but rather a viral gene that codes for a protein called reverse transcriptase. Retroviruses infect humans and insert this little piece of DNA into our sequence (think HIV). Shows how retroviruses have been infecting the 'human' population for thousands of years - all the information just gets carried along in the DNA.
I do not find myself giving this too much concern at this time, however, the flu kills more people than most people think. The big problem with this strain, much to the dismay of the drug companies, is that there is no meds for preventing for this one. Just a drug for after symptoms show. Too bad you are contagious prior to that. The big cause for concern comes from the memory of the 1918 influenza epidemic that killed somewhere between 20 and 40 MILLION people. Travel did not take place as quickly in those days. This can spread worldwide very quickly, so I understand the need for people to be aware of this and for them to try to throw a handle on it.
fakemaster said:
Has anyone heard from Czar Czar recently???? LOS, any word on WHERE he has been? Maybe he went on a trip to Mexico recently?
- 16/11/08
- 7,543
- 146
- 63
kitersoze said:
I think that this is veering way off the topic now, but I didn't get a chance to answer this earlier when I'd read it.
I do think that that number is not unreasonable. There are a lot of people wh do die from adverse events, although they're not always necessarily "mistakes" like operating on the wrong limb or giving someone the wrong medication. Adverse events are sometimes idiosyncratic and unpredictable (such as an allergic reaction to a medication or unusual sensitivity or side effect). The status quo for a long time has been to keep these events as quiet as possible. However, this may be changing.
In order to reduce the incidence of adverse events, it's necessary to be able to study previous incidents. But this is a lot harder if the reaction to disclosing these events is punitive. In many cases, it's thought that adverse events may be due more to flaws in the process of delivering healthcare (such as overcrowding, understaffing, mistakes being made at changes of shift) than to the judgment of any one person. So there's more of a push to try to bring these issues to light with less emphasis on punishment so that improvements can be made in the system.
Another recent development is the idea that any errors or adverse events ought to be brought to the attention of patients, even if they don't necessarily cause any harm to the patient. Studies have shown that most patients want to be told if something has gone wrong, no matter how trivial. However, there may be incidences in which this does not benefit the patient. Patients who already suffer from debilitating anxiety, for example, probably don't need to have their faith in their health care even more undermined. Healthcare professionals have not historically been trained to disclose errors to patients or to ensure complete transparency in delivery of care. And policing of this sort of disclosure is also not uniform. Only a few hospitals have established policies on emphasizing this sort of disclosure. And studies are still being done regarding whether this sort of transparency increases or decreases the likelihood that hospitals and doctors will get sued. Of course, patients won't see this is an excuse not to disclose errors, but realistically, it's going to be difficult to convince hospitals to be completely forthright if they're likely to be punished for it. In some cases, it's possible that it might increase the possibility of lawsuits, as patients may learn of errors that they would have otherwise been unaware of. Conversely however, it's possible that honesty of this sort will improve the relationship bewteen doctor and patient such that they take on a less adversarial role.
Having said all of this, I've almost forgotten why Kitersoze asked about medical errors in the first place. I think that it was because he was comparing the number of deaths due to medical errors with that due to swine flu. With respect to that, Tagfan is absolutely correct. Swine flu doesn't get me more excited than any kind of influenza. SARS, in my opinion, was a lot scarier. I did, however, take a previously planned trip to Hong Kong and Shenzhen right in the midst of the SARS scare and it didn't kill me either.
Here's the thing. If you're going to get it then you're going to get it. A mask ain't gonna save you. Wrapping youself in Saran wrap ain't gonna save you. Going into the mountains might as long as you're not hunting Boar.
ahw676 said:
I assume that brtelec meant vaccines, instead of meds. The fact of the matter is that the flu vaccine is produced specifically for each year's flu season, based on an estimation of just what type of virus will be seen.
Sometimes we get it wrong, and more people get sick, and sometimes the flu season seems weak, because the vaccines formulation was accurately forecasted. There will likely be little protection from last year's vaccine with respect to this swine flu. Companies could come out with a new vaccine, but by the time that happened, the event would likely be over with.
This time of year the flu is not usually that prevalent. People are starting to spend more time outside (for the most part) and are not huddled together inside in small spaces - where things like the flu can spread more quickly.
