inbangkok Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic...No intelligent Dr would. As I already stated.... The flu is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Antibiotics are for bacteria. This is a simple scientific fact that is not even up for debate or discussion.You are the very reason that antibiotics should not be sold without a prescription. Edited February 23, 2015 by inbangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic...No intelligent Dr would. As I already stated.... The flu is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Antibiotics are for bacteria. This is a simple scientific fact that is not even up for debate or discussion.You are the very reason that antibiotics should not be sold without a prescription. Well Dr. do give antibiotics for a flu....That are the not so intelligent ones. In some cases they even help, if you get some bacterial infection on to of the flu or if the flu is in fact not a flu but a similar looking infection. Often 2 problems in Thailand: Add an antibiotics if it doesn't help, it doesn't harm. Second if the customer doesn't get some heavy pills he isn't happy (Dr. didn't help me....). Both is terrible nonsense but happens often. But it is my body and it should be only up to me what I do with it. The whole system of prescriptions is ridiculous, we aren't small children that must be protected. A grown up should decide himself. As we see here some can't but that should not be the reason others should be handled like children. And if you think that in a wider scale you must put the Big Mac from McDonalds on prescription because it is more harmful (if you look USA) to health than an unnecessary antibiotics. (I doubt 10x 10 days antibiotics over a lifetime shortens life significant, but having 100 kg more than your normal weight does, so in the logic of prescriptions you would have to prescript food) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic...No intelligent Dr would. As I already stated.... The flu is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Antibiotics are for bacteria. This is a simple scientific fact that is not even up for debate or discussion.You are the very reason that antibiotics should not be sold without a prescription. Well Dr. do give antibiotics for a flu....That are the not so intelligent ones. In some cases they even help, if you get some bacterial infection on to of the flu or if the flu is in fact not a flu but a similar looking infection. Often 2 problems in Thailand: Add an antibiotics if it doesn't help, it doesn't harm. Second if the customer doesn't get some heavy pills he isn't happy (Dr. didn't help me....). Both is terrible nonsense but happens often. But it is my body and it should be only up to me what I do with it. The whole system of prescriptions is ridiculous, we aren't small children that must be protected. A grown up should decide himself. As we see here some can't but that should not be the reason others should be handled like children. And if you think that in a wider scale you must put the Big Mac from McDonalds on prescription because it is more harmful (if you look USA) to health than an unnecessary antibiotics. (I doubt 10x 10 days antibiotics over a lifetime shortens life significant, but having 100 kg more than your normal weight does, so in the logic of prescriptions you would have to prescript food) But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKKdreaming Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I see many Doctors , not just Thai Docs that feel they have to give you some pills, or you will feel he did not do his job But I always hear Thais say they are going to get medicine at the Pharmacy , and who knows what the girl behind the counter will give them ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic...No intelligent Dr would. As I already stated.... The flu is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Antibiotics are for bacteria. This is a simple scientific fact that is not even up for debate or discussion.You are the very reason that antibiotics should not be sold without a prescription. Well Dr. do give antibiotics for a flu....That are the not so intelligent ones. In some cases they even help, if you get some bacterial infection on to of the flu or if the flu is in fact not a flu but a similar looking infection. Often 2 problems in Thailand: Add an antibiotics if it doesn't help, it doesn't harm. Second if the customer doesn't get some heavy pills he isn't happy (Dr. didn't help me....). Both is terrible nonsense but happens often. But it is my body and it should be only up to me what I do with it. The whole system of prescriptions is ridiculous, we aren't small children that must be protected. A grown up should decide himself. As we see here some can't but that should not be the reason others should be handled like children. And if you think that in a wider scale you must put the Big Mac from McDonalds on prescription because it is more harmful (if you look USA) to health than an unnecessary antibiotics. (I doubt 10x 10 days antibiotics over a lifetime shortens life significant, but having 100 kg more than your normal weight does, so in the logic of prescriptions you would have to prescript food) But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Antibiotics You are right and I am wrong! You could give the cheap one free for use. They are anyway widely used for animals, often illegal than the mix of pig and cow faeces and antibiotics are fermenting together. The perfect training ground for resistance. They do it in quantities no human doctor would ever believe but only on cheap things. But the few restricted should be controlled even better than now. Scary things happen with idiots...One freelance sales here had an infection in the sinus and need to open them, but no money. He took antibiotics for 1 year, on and off up to if he had money or not (good thing he was always drunk the 10 years I know him but didn't drink that 1 year which is amazing because he believed no alcohol with tablets). So on that antibiotics you are right and I am wrong... Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Smoke: Yes in public places: Train station, airport it should be banned, no question. But bars should be able to choose. And the American paranoia is wrong, if I smoke at home, the smoke goes out of the window and into the next ones window. Barely possible to smell it if you put your head out of the window causes less cancer than many other things (cars, UV light). Have on bars a writing "smoke bar club, causing cancer don't enter if you want to protect yourself". (I don't smoke anymore, my wife is a heavy smoker and I hate it, but government should warn and but not force people. And of course public places should be protected). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inbangkok Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic...No intelligent Dr would. As I already stated.... The flu is a virus. Antibiotics do not work on viruses. Antibiotics are for bacteria. This is a simple scientific fact that is not even up for debate or discussion.You are the very reason that antibiotics should not be sold without a prescription. Well Dr. do give antibiotics for a flu....That are the not so intelligent ones. In some cases they even help, if you get some bacterial infection on to of the flu or if the flu is in fact not a flu but a similar looking infection. Often 2 problems in Thailand: Add an antibiotics if it doesn't help, it doesn't harm. Second if the customer doesn't get some heavy pills he isn't happy (Dr. didn't help me....). Both is terrible nonsense but happens often. But it is my body and it should be only up to me what I do with it. The whole system of prescriptions is ridiculous, we aren't small children that must be protected. A grown up should decide himself. As we see here some can't but that should not be the reason others should be handled like children. And if you think that in a wider scale you must put the Big Mac from McDonalds on prescription because it is more harmful (if you look USA) to health than an unnecessary antibiotics. (I doubt 10x 10 days antibiotics over a lifetime shortens life significant, but having 100 kg more than your normal weight does, so in the logic of prescriptions you would have to prescript food) No! When you needlessly take antibiotics it endangers everyone as bacteria becomes resistant. Then other people cannot be treated with antibiotics because of these new strains of bacteria. Ignorance is not bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Thai "western" medicine is largely modeled in the US medical system. For the most part, IMO, the training is basically sufficient to produce competent GPs. What they do from there I have little knowledge. Thai traditional medicine appears to be a mix of local/tribal and traditional Chinese medicine; this last part may confuse a few curious observers because it also appears to have Indian heritage- both these things are compatible. In my estimation TCM from china is largely based on Indian medicine, and their own local/tribal practices. It is true that examples of ridiculous treatments can be found, such as the Rhino horn and erections. This is based on very old universal medical practices where like colors, like products, similarities in nature treat similar deficiencies in man- black herbs for kidneys, white products for lung ailments, green things for liver, red for heart, etc. Likewise similarly shaped items were assumed to address similarly shaped elements of man's internal environment. This is based on the earth man heaven/jing qi shen* concept. So, they believed whatever is in nature can cure. In many aspects they are correct. In many, silly or provincial concepts. *This concept underlies all martial arts/qigong and TCM medicine. If any one practitioner or patient thinks good medicine can be reduced to western or eastern they are mistaken. A blended mix of modern allopathic medicine and traditional medicine is the best method for treating branch and root, presentation of problem and underlying issues predisposing a patient to a problem. Clearly this breaks down when someone hits a tree on the motorbike- fix the branch- the broken femur- that's it. Traditional medicine should aver from such efforts as trauma (though I have been told Thai bone-doctors are similar to chinese tui na masters regarding musculoskeletal problems). Western medicine is a brilliant, remarkable accomplishment for humans but traditional medicines also make good use of the greatest medicine consistently known to man- the ability of the body to regenerate and self heal. My wife and I practice both though my first approach is usually from western reduction and her's traditional holism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Thai "western" medicine is largely modeled in the US medical system. For the most part, IMO, the training is basically sufficient to produce competent GPs. What they do from there I have little knowledge. Thai traditional medicine appears to be a mix of local/tribal and traditional Chinese medicine; this last part may confuse a few curious observers because it also appears to have Indian heritage- both these things are compatible. In my estimation TCM from china is largely based on Indian medicine, and their own local/tribal practices. It is true that examples of ridiculous treatments can be found, such as the Rhino horn and erections. This is based on very old universal medical practices where like colors, like products, similarities in nature treat similar deficiencies in man- black herbs for kidneys, white products for lung ailments, green things for liver, red for heart, etc. Likewise similarly shaped items were assumed to address similarly shaped elements of man's internal environment. This is based on the earth man heaven/jing qi shen* concept. So, they believed whatever is in nature can cure. In many aspects they are correct. In many, silly or provincial concepts. *This concept underlies all martial arts/qigong and TCM medicine. If any one practitioner or patient thinks good medicine can be reduced to western or eastern they are mistaken. A blended mix of modern allopathic medicine and traditional medicine is the best method for treating branch and root, presentation of problem and underlying issues predisposing a patient to a problem. Clearly this breaks down when someone hits a tree on the motorbike- fix the branch- the broken femur- that's it. Traditional medicine should aver from such efforts as trauma (though I have been told Thai bone-doctors are similar to chinese tui na masters regarding musculoskeletal problems). Western medicine is a brilliant, remarkable accomplishment for humans but traditional medicines also make good use of the greatest medicine consistently known to man- the ability of the body to regenerate and self heal. My wife and I practice both though my first approach is usually from western reduction and her's traditional holism. Many of the herbs were known and used in Europe. But first purge did the church when hunted down the witches and second when the pharma companies didn't like the competition. But this natural medicines can be tested exactly modern medicine and And mostly it will do something and has some side effect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 It's nonsensical to talk about western or eastern medicine. There is only evidence-based medicine. It doesn't become more or less valuable or effective simply by crossing some imaginary dividing line between east and west. If some effective component of an herb or plant root is clinically tested, passes properly controlled clinical trials and found to have beneficial medicinal effects (meaning the potential benefits outweigh the risks and side effects), its active ingredient is isolated and made into a form more suitable for human ingestion. That's how evidence-based medicine should work, no matter which hemisphere we're talking about. Aspirin is a good example. A hundred or so years ago somebody noticed that gnawing on the bark of a certain species of willow tree produced analgesic effects in some people. But there were some problems - it was a bit hit or miss, and not everybody reported feeling a benefit. You had to get the right kind of tree bark, from the right part of the tree. It had to be the right time of the year, and hopefully from a spot on the tree that hadn't been peed on by a squirrel, some people who tried it reported stomach irritation. The bark would quickly decompose and turn moldy so it had to be collected fresh, which wasn't always possible. In short - it was a good discovery, but there were a lot of problems to be resolved. Eventually the active ingredient - salicylic acid - was isolated, extracted and made into a powder that could be dissolved in tea. In the mid 1800s, chemists began synthetic production of salicylic acid, which was an easier and less expensive way to produce the compound. In the early 1900s, Bayer improved on the formula making acetylsalicylic acid, which had the same analgesic effects but was less irritating to sensitive people. With this compound, now in pill or tablet form, you could be assured of getting the right dose of medicine that had been made in a sterile environment under proper quality controls. It was available all year round and could be kept at home in a bottle for many months until it was needed. Going to a village doctor for some herbs? Not so much. I'm not trying to poo-poo herbal remedies. I think it's a good place to start looking for organic compounds we may never have encountered. But it's only a starting point. Once some ingredient with potential benefit is found, a lot of work needs to happen before its effects can be documented, tested for safety and set in a properly metered dose. Only then can it properly be called medicine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 It's nonsensical to talk about western or eastern medicine. There is only evidence-based medicine. It doesn't become more or less valuable or effective simply by crossing some imaginary dividing line between east and west. If some effective component of an herb or plant root is clinically tested, passes properly controlled clinical trials and found to have beneficial medicinal effects (meaning the potential benefits outweigh the risks and side effects), its active ingredient is isolated and made into a form more suitable for human ingestion. That's how evidence-based medicine should work, no matter which hemisphere we're talking about. Aspirin is a good example. A hundred or so years ago somebody noticed that gnawing on the bark of a certain species of willow tree produced analgesic effects in some people. But there were some problems - it was a bit hit or miss, and not everybody reported feeling a benefit. You had to get the right kind of tree bark, from the right part of the tree. It had to be the right time of the year, and hopefully from a spot on the tree that hadn't been peed on by a squirrel, some people who tried it reported stomach irritation. The bark would quickly decompose and turn moldy so it had to be collected fresh, which wasn't always possible. In short - it was a good discovery, but there were a lot of problems to be resolved. Eventually the active ingredient - salicylic acid - was isolated, extracted and made into a powder that could be dissolved in tea. In the mid 1800s, chemists began synthetic production of salicylic acid, which was an easier and less expensive way to produce the compound. In the early 1900s, Bayer improved on the formula making acetylsalicylic acid, which had the same analgesic effects but was less irritating to sensitive people. With this compound, now in pill or tablet form, you could be assured of getting the right dose of medicine that had been made in a sterile environment under proper quality controls. It was available all year round and could be kept at home in a bottle for many months until it was needed. Going to a village doctor for some herbs? Not so much. I'm not trying to poo-poo herbal remedies. I think it's a good place to start looking for organic compounds we may never have encountered. But it's only a starting point. Once some ingredient with potential benefit is found, a lot of work needs to happen before its effects can be documented, tested for safety and set in a properly metered dose. Only then can it properly be called medicine. While a complete agree with everything you write I want to add: It was common to mix different herbs to the exact needs of one sick person, which might be better than with one high dosed item. And there are ideas how to live with problems with a minimum of problems instead of high dose medications, like some specific diet or exercises. But of course that can be all proofed = evidence based again. And not to forget that half of the western doctors prescribe homeopathic medication and in my country I think 99 % of all pharmacies have them and recommend them, that is the same hocus pocus medicine as the Chinese one . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 "what do you think about Thai Medicine. ? I think it's cheaper and more effective. I think many farang Medicine are just a rip off. (placebo) there's no such thing as either. there's only one kind of medication, that's the kind that is shown to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 when u see doctor for a flu, he gives your antibiotic... Tripe! Flu is a virus - antibiotics are for bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 But when you overuse antibiotics or use them for no reason you are not just affecting your own body, you are endangering other people. It is not at all risks to your own health that are the reason for suppressing irrational antibiotic use. The huge increase in the numbers and distribution of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics and all responsible public health authorities point this out time and time again, and try in vain to discourage it. "Antibiotic resistance poses a grave and growing global problem: a World Health Organization report released April 2014 stated, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance –when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections– is now a major threat to public health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance The increase in antibiotic resistance is directly related to unchecked use of antibiotics. Using them to treat colds or flu is absolutely crazy. Like spreading polio or measles to other people's children by refusing to have your own children vaccinated, or increasing the risks of cancer to bystanders by filling their environment with your smoke, this is not simply a matter of personal choice, because it directly affects others who do not have the choice. Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) This song - "Vaccinate Your Kids" - says it PERFECTLY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YCGMqp6kBE Edited March 2, 2015 by cumgranosalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly94 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Thai only Thai medicine I have noticed is crocodile blood for the almost dead, water spraying and assorted mumbo jumbo including trances, the laying on of hands and chickens getting their heads chopped off, i'll stick to western thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. No they are not anti-social, it is my personal right and only my right to decide what I inject into myself. Even if the decision is idiotic. And again in my society is in the extended family over 3 generations not 1 case of problem known. So the danger is exaggerated. But we know several who suffered from polio, tons of people with problems from Meningoenzephalitis (from ticks). Why no one knows any of the dramatic cases from Measles. Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children. I am not against the vaccination but it is no drama when some children get the measles, if the parents are concerned they should visit a doctor or vaccinate their children. And discussing the herd immunity, but letting illegal immigrations who may carry diseases in without limits is more than strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) It is my personal right and only my right to decide what I inject into myself. Your rights end where the safety of others is threatened. How would you feel if you caught measles and then passed it on to an at-risk member of society who is too young, sick or old to get vaccinated? I'm glad that you acknowledge the decision as "idiotic", but I'd go further and say it's criminal reckless endangerment. You might be contributing to the deaths of infants, immuno-compromised people and the elderly just by sharing an elevator ride with them. Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children. This statement is not true but just for the sake of argument let's assume that it is. What about the children who aren't healthy and strong? I guess it's just too bad for them right? In fact, some are so young or sick with other diseases they can't receive the vaccine even if they wanted to. They depend on us to do the right thing and not spread measles to them. I find it jaw-dropping that your position seems to be "I don't want to get vaccinated, and I'll infect whomever I want to". Why no one knows any of the dramatic cases from Measles. This is a classic appeal to ignorance. Since we're ignorant of the statistics, the problem must not be that serious! Maybe you don't know, but the rest of us do: the dramatic cases exist: Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available. In 2013, there were 145,700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour. Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide. In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000. During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health. Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145,700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5. So tell me, how do you feel about 140 thousand needlessly dead children? Edited March 2, 2015 by attrayant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. No they are not anti-social, it is my personal right and only my right to decide what I inject into myself. Even if the decision is idiotic. And again in my society is in the extended family over 3 generations not 1 case of problem known. So the danger is exaggerated. But we know several who suffered from polio, tons of people with problems from Meningoenzephalitis (from ticks). Why no one knows any of the dramatic cases from Measles. Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children. I am not against the vaccination but it is no drama when some children get the measles, if the parents are concerned they should visit a doctor or vaccinate their children. And discussing the herd immunity, but letting illegal immigrations who may carry diseases in without limits is more than strange. Read the papers! - both medical and then the media - Of course it's anti-social - for precisely the reasons above - you CANNOT argue otherwise. Your actions directly impinge on others - that is a pretty accurate definition of what is anti-social. US and many western countries a just waking up to this now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Polio is a good argument, measles a weak one, but you can't force people to take vaccines. Polio is terrible but measles is mostly harmless. Sorry if I seem to be deliberately disagreeing for the sake of it, I'm not- I just wanted to correct your mistaken impression that measles doesn't matter. There is an outbreak of measles in California now: because of undervaccination. This occurs not in "poor" families, but in mainly white, college educated families, earning $75,000 a year or more, misled by the anti-vaccine misinformation that has become a universal myth. Measles is not harmless, see Lancet article this week: "...in the days before measles vaccination one in 1000 children who contracted measles developed encephalitis—and some ended up paralysed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60423-8/fulltext Hopefully the facts will aid sensible decisions. In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. No they are not anti-social, it is my personal right and only my right to decide what I inject into myself. Even if the decision is idiotic. And again in my society is in the extended family over 3 generations not 1 case of problem known. So the danger is exaggerated. But we know several who suffered from polio, tons of people with problems from Meningoenzephalitis (from ticks). Why no one knows any of the dramatic cases from Measles. Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children. I am not against the vaccination but it is no drama when some children get the measles, if the parents are concerned they should visit a doctor or vaccinate their children. And discussing the herd immunity, but letting illegal immigrations who may carry diseases in without limits is more than strange. "Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children." - ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!! - you appear to be posting from a position of complete ignorance on the topic. Edited March 2, 2015 by cumgranosalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (deleted quotes) It is criminal if I have Measles and run around knowing that I have them. Infecting someone is bad, no question. But idea of force-vaccination or social pressure to vaccinate is extreme totalitarian. That: "In 2013, there were 145,700 measles deaths globally" is again a fake statistic for propaganda purposes. Because where are these deads? In Europe/USA/Japan or in countries with malnutrition? Surely there statistics how many there died from simple virus diarrhea. That statistic would advocate vaccination there or lets say a global vaccination program. But in this there is no financial interest. Interesting would be how many died in middle Europe in the 1970s before vaccination, not many I guess. But actually I don't want to defend people who don't vaccinate, I only want to point out that it is their good right. Doubting it brings us into a terrible risk, because when force vaccination is done, what could else forced on us in 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 In my age no one was vaccinated against measles, people often didn't bring their kids to the doctor. I recall that my mother was seen as overprotective to go to the doc with me, just for measles. No one knows a single case of problems (but of course know of bad cases from polio). So it must went dangerous just the last few years. Or like common: they mixed African cases, badly malnutrition starving children into the statistics. They of course suffer much worse. Wikipedia says "in about 1 in 100,000 cases[50]—panencephalitis". One in 100.000 seems probable. Or how many died in California already? Don't understand me wrong, I am not against vaccination of measles, but I don't see the dead or alive scenario they want to tell us in the media. In every 30+ year old book it is a harmless disease every kid gets, and now in orwell change it is a deadly disease. These are the things (beside doctors selling non working hocus pokus like homeopathy) that brings the educated people to doubt just about everything and go to the other extreme believing that some vaccine will kill their kid. THe normal vaccine is MMR - Measles, Mumps, Rubella. Apart from death these illnesses result in blindness, infertility and many other problems. Those who do not vaccination are not just idiots, they are anti-social as their behaviour came damage the "herd immunity" that comes from mass vaccination programs. Next to clean water supplies and sewage systems, vaccines are probably the greatest benefit to human health in history. No they are not anti-social, it is my personal right and only my right to decide what I inject into myself. Even if the decision is idiotic. And again in my society is in the extended family over 3 generations not 1 case of problem known. So the danger is exaggerated. But we know several who suffered from polio, tons of people with problems from Meningoenzephalitis (from ticks). Why no one knows any of the dramatic cases from Measles. Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children. I am not against the vaccination but it is no drama when some children get the measles, if the parents are concerned they should visit a doctor or vaccinate their children. And discussing the herd immunity, but letting illegal immigrations who may carry diseases in without limits is more than strange. "Because they don't happen to young strong healthy children." - ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!! - you appear to be posting from a position of complete ignorance on the topic. 1 in 10000 (of all infected) is what wikipedia says. You stay at home from school a few days, like everyone of my generation did and no one felt too bad, or even went to hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 That: "In 2013, there were 145,700 measles deaths globally" is again a fake statistic for propaganda purposes. I'm intrigued. Why would countries all over the world over-report their infectious disease mortality rates? That's not exactly something to be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) 1 in 10000 (of all infected) is what wikipedia says. You stay at home from school a few days, like everyone of my generation did and no one felt too bad, or even went to hospital. I thought you were sensible, but resorting to merely asserting that evidence you don't like "is made up", with no supporting evidence other than personal authority on the grounds of prejudice is simply irrational. The evidence for the dangers of measles is listed in hundreds of papers on Pub Med. It would take days to read them. They are not "made up" Here's a single view from before vaccination, from a sophisticated western country : From the American Journal of Public Health 1921 http://www.ncbi.nlm....h00080-0006.pdf A Brief Statistical Study of Recent Experience with Measles and Whooping Cough in Massachusetts Jonathan E Henry MD, Epidemiologist, Massachusetts Department of Health , Boston "From 1913 -1919 inclusive there were in Massachusetts 2,091 deaths from measles with 152,877 reported cases...giving a fatality rate of 1.3% for measles. [...] (1) Approximately ...18% of the measles in Massachusetts are in children under 3 [...] (3) The apparent fatality rates for the group under 3 in 1918 were [ ...] 8% for measles. [...] (4) For each thousand reported cases of measles in 1918 in Massachusetts there were 18 deaths and 14 of these were under 3 [...] (7) Measles is more prevalent but less fatal [than whooping cough]. In the end they cause almost equal numbers of deaths and should cause us equal concern." [...] (10) It cannot be emphasized too strongly that in these dangerous years, when so many children die of measles and whooping cough or their complications, the most careful medical attention and nursing are needed to prevent dangerous complications. Edited March 2, 2015 by partington 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 1 in 10000 (of all infected) is what wikipedia says. You stay at home from school a few days, like everyone of my generation did and no one felt too bad, or even went to hospital. I thought you were sensible, but resorting to merely asserting that evidence you don't like "is made up", with no supporting evidence other than personal authority on the grounds of prejudice is simply irrational. The evidence for the dangers of measles is listed in hundreds of papers on Pub Med. It would take days to read them. They are not "made up" Here's a single view from before vaccination, from a sophisticated western country : From the American Journal of Public Health 1921 http://www.ncbi.nlm....h00080-0006.pdf A Brief Statistical Study of Recent Experience with Measles and Whooping Cough in Massachusetts Jonathan E Henry MD, Epidemiologist, Massachusetts Department of Health , Boston "From 1913 -1919 inclusive there were in Massachusetts 2,091 deaths from measles with 152,877 reported cases...giving a fatality rate of 1.3% for measles. [...] (1) Approximately ...18% of the measles in Massachusetts are in children under 3 [...] (3) The apparent fatality rates for the group under 3 in 1918 were [ ...] 8% for measles. [...] (4) For each thousand reported cases of measles in 1918 in Massachusetts there were 18 deaths and 14 of these were under 3 [...] (7) Measles is more prevalent but less fatal [than whooping cough]. In the end they cause almost equal numbers of deaths and should cause us equal concern." [...] (10) It cannot be emphasized too strongly that in these dangerous years, when so many children die of measles and whooping cough or their complications, the most careful medical attention and nursing are needed to prevent dangerous complications. OK, I accept that I be wrong on that. I still have doubts why no one personally knows a single case over generations and parents who had doctors as their friends. But your evidence is overwhelming. For me and everyone I know having measles was better than going to school. Mumps was worse and I had to see the doctor twice....That personal experience puzzles me and the sample is big surely a couple of thousand people. But I accept I am wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nidieunimaitre Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 in Thailand you can get antibiotic near Tescos and it s cheap. (60 bahts) In Europe I need to spend 6k bahts for a doc consultation and another 2000 bahts for a box of antibiotic to fix a stupid flu. non refundable by insurance. In which Europe is that? In my Europe, I pay 1.000 baht to the doctor, and the National Health Insurance gives me back 800 baht. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 yes you are all correct, sorry, it was not a flu, was a bronchitis. I cough a lot if I don't wear a mask on my scooter and it will kill me. A valiant effort to get off the hook! However there is still this to contend with..... http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Bronchitis/Pages/Causes.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) For those who don't get it, here are a couple of points about measles. From wiki - "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, nearly twice as many children died from measles as from polio" "In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles." - http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html Edited March 3, 2015 by cumgranosalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts