Heart of a nurse, brain of a doctor thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,446
32,978
1,743
oklahoma city
#84
Despite the common use of face masks, there is no scientific evidence I could find showing that masks are effective in preventing the transmission of the virus
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext

December 2008Volume 12, Supplement 1, Page e328
The First Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Mask Use in Households to Prevent Respiratory Virus Transmission


Background: Observational epidemiologic data suggest that transmission of viral respiratory infection was significantly reduced during the SARS epidemic with the use of face masks as well as other infection control measures. However, there are no prospective randomised control trials on face masks in prevention of viral respiratory infections Aims: To determine the efficacy of surgical masks and P2 masks in households on the interruption of transmission of respiratory viruses.

Methods: Prospective cluster randomized trial comparing surgical masks, non-fit-tested P2 (respirator) masks with no masks in interruption of viral transmission between household members. Families of children presenting to emergency department with influenza like illness (ILI) were randomised to one of the three groups and followed up for development of respiratory illness in other family members. Nasopharyngeal swabs of index patients and contacts that developed ILI were tested with a multiplex respiratory viral PCR for influenza A and B, parainfluenza, RSV, picornavirus, enterovirus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, coronaviruses human metapneumovirus.

Results: We recruited 286 adults with exposure to respiratory infections in the Australian winters of 2006 and 2007 - 94 adults were randomized to surgical masks, 90 to P2 masks and 102 to the control group. Using intention to treat analysis, we found no significant difference in the relative risk of respiratory illness in the mask groups compared to control group. However, compliance with mask use was less than 50%. In an adjusted analysis of compliant subjects, masks as a group had protective efficacy in excess of 80% against clinical influenza-like illness. The efficacy against proven viral infection and between P2 masks (57%) and surgical masks (33%) was non-significant.

Conclusions: This is the first RCT on mask use to be conducted and provides data to inform pandemic planning. We found compliance to be low, but compliance is affected by perception of risk. In a pandemic, we would expect compliance to improve. In compliant users, masks were highly efficacious. A larger study is required to enumerate the difference in efficacy (if any) between surgical and non-fit tested P2 masks.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,230
4,078
743
50
#85
Based on instruction that we are supposed to protect little ones and their immune systems, but then they want you to give a ton of shots to them before even 1. I have a bunch of kids and I've seen the amount of shots go up and some of them weren't given as early before.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
How does the increase in shots not protect them? Is there any evidence whatsoever that the increase in vaccines has negatively affected infant/toddler health?
Do you have kids? The increase in not eating, fevers, etc... You can say it's anecdotal but to me they are putting too much into these bodies. Have you ever had a baby literally refuse to eat? So much that they have to force a tube in them? I'm not the only parent I know that that has happened to within a day or two of 6 month shots.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

P4L

Sheriff
Nov 7, 2007
3,045
6,672
1,743
Kenosha, WI
#86
Do you have kids? The increase in not eating, fevers, etc... You can say it's anecdotal but to me they are putting too much into these bodies. Have you ever had a baby literally refuse to eat? So much that they have to force a tube in them? I'm not the only parent I know that that has happened to within a day or two of 6 month shots.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yes. I have a 7 year old and I'm also a foster parent that takes in infants and toddlers, so I've had a few kids now that have gone through early immunization routines. I will say it's anecdotal until you can show me data that the increased schedule has a causal effect on child health. Are there adverse reactions to vaccines? Sure. Are those reactions increased or made worse by more vaccines in the same timespan? I'd need to see some data.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,230
4,078
743
50
#87
Do you have kids? The increase in not eating, fevers, etc... You can say it's anecdotal but to me they are putting too much into these bodies. Have you ever had a baby literally refuse to eat? So much that they have to force a tube in them? I'm not the only parent I know that that has happened to within a day or two of 6 month shots.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yes. I have a 7 year old and I'm also a foster parent that takes in infants and toddlers, so I've had a few kids now that have gone through early immunization routines. I will say it's anecdotal until you can show me data that the increased schedule has a causal effect on child health. Are there adverse reactions to vaccines? Sure. Are those reactions increased or made worse by more vaccines in the same timespan? I'd need to see some data.
It would be nice to see data, but no one wants to study it. FDA says it's all good they were all tested in the past and the vaccine makers aren't going to study it. There's no research money in it, so you won't find universities studying it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

P4L

Sheriff
Nov 7, 2007
3,045
6,672
1,743
Kenosha, WI
#89
It would be nice to see data, but no one wants to study it. FDA says it's all good they were all tested in the past and the vaccine makers aren't going to study it. There's no research money in it, so you won't find universities studying it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I would disagree there's no money in vaccine safety research. Go to grants.gov and search vaccine safety and there are currently 483 available grants for different topics. Vaccines are constantly studied. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me that this hasn't already been studied. Not to mention that the study could almost be done by anyone with enough time since there's a public reporting system/database for vaccine adverse reactions.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,446
32,978
1,743
oklahoma city
#90
It would be nice to see data, but no one wants to study it. FDA says it's all good they were all tested in the past and the vaccine makers aren't going to study it. There's no research money in it, so you won't find universities studying it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Maybe do a literature search and you will see the thousands of studies that are done on vaccination. Not only has what you are worried about been studied multiple times, it has been studied in multiple ways. There is a peer reviewed journal called Vaccine. Surely they would not publish a journal once per month on a topic with no money to even study since it was all done in the past.

The concern over the idea that we have too many vaccines now is a lack of understanding of how our immune systems work. First of all the capacity of the human B and T cells to antigenic stimuli are many orders of magnitude higher than the number of vaccines given. We could literally give thousands of vaccines and still not overwhelm the system. Think about what our bodies are exposed to all of the time living life. Those antigens activate the system also.

Second, despite the increase in the number of vaccines, through refinement the actual number of antigenic particles now given are far less than in the past when we gave fewer vaccines. So, yes, more things covered, but with less antigens and more effectively because like everything else, vaccines are improving.

Our daughter had frequent bouts of high fever, rash, not eating, vomiting, staying up all night miserable and screaming etc. But, those were caused by the 9-14 viruses that attack human infant on average PER YEAR when at that age. So, about one a month.

I'm not an immunologist, ID doc or a pediatrician and a lot of the details of vaccines are beyond my knowledge base. It is interesting that nobody ever tells tell their cardiothoracic surgeon how long they will allow themselves to be on the heart-lung machine even though too long can be risky. But for some reason, a lot of people feel pretty comfortable with their detailed knowledge of immunology and wants to dictate vaccines for the experts.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,634
51,760
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#91
Our daughter had frequent bouts of high fever, rash, not eating, vomiting, staying up all night miserable and screaming etc. But, those were caused by the 9-14 viruses that attack human infant on average PER YEAR when at that age. So, about one a month.
No, no... those happened at some point after vaccination so it must be the vaccine!

The way adverse effects get added to the package information... if a patient is on a study drug, in this case a vaccine, and they have a symptom or symptoms which cause them to seek healthcare, or which they report to a provider during a routine check, it must be reported as a potential adverse effect. Thus, adverse effects to study meds fall into several categories:

1. It wasn't an adverse effect of the study med, it was something else that caused the symptom and it was coincidental that the patient was on a study med. Since the causative agent is something else, these effects tend to run the gamut from very mild to very serious. But, again, it has nothing to do with the study med. These effects are common.
2. It was an adverse effect of the study med, but the patient had conditions that will likely never exist again in nature, or will be extremely rare in nature, that contributed to the adverse effect. These adverse effects tend to be serious.
3. The adverse effects was a direct pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic (elimination related), or pharmacodynamic (dose related) adverse effect caused by the med. The most common adverse effects in this category are mild and tolerable and tend to dissipate over time. The most serious are rare, or if they are common the drug gets pulled from the market. These adverse effects tend to be predictable (i.e. the patient is on another med that affects elimination of the study med).
4. The adverse effects are idiosyncratic, which means they happen, the med is definitely the causative agent, but we can't explain how they happen or predict in whom they will happen. These can be anything from mild and barely noticeable to extremely severe, and they tend to the severe. Acetaminophen liver toxicity is a good example. We know it happens in overdose, and happens in alcoholics, but we cannot predict exactly which ODs or alcoholics it will happen to. Some people could OD on acetaminophen and it would kill them by killing their liver, others would merely get a bump in enzymes. Since we don't know which a patient might be at baseline, we have to treat all acetaminophen overdoses as if they are serious.

Again, I would never tell a parent that they are wrong to worry about adverse effects of anything that we are given their children. However, parents are making decisions based on incomplete and/or disinformation (information that is purposefully misleading). Hopefully, the above info will help someone make better decisions.
 
Last edited:

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,397
8,630
1,743
SIDS is clearly #1. But autism is a damned close second in my book.


*Brain damage looks like she'd rather kick my ass than date me. Which, like @RxCowboy, is a turn on for me too. :lol: