Parents, brush up on your three C's (cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis) and get your kids ready for bed-rest. The Measles are back! (Just don't let the fact that no treatment exists paired with the 1 in 1000 death rate faze you.)
In an age of superbugs, you might wonder what crazy new mutation has let the measles come roaring back, but the resurgent measles are no different than the old-school measles that we last saw circa the turn of the century in The Lawrenceville Stories (the prequel to, and suprerior of Dink Stover at Yale).
The measles are back because today's parents are refusing to innoculate their children against measles, mumps, and rubella out of a fear that these vaccines could cause autism. The most popular arguement is that thiomersal, a preservative used in some vaccines, can trigger autism spectrum disorders, but this assertion does not hold up scientifically.
Remember, thiomersal and other mercury-containing preservatives were phased out starting in 1999. If there really were a causal link between these vaccines and autism, autism rates should have dropped in the decade following the phase-out. This did not occur.
A few other theories have been advanced, but none has been recognized by the scientific community. Vaccines and autism are not causally related, even though there is a correlation. Children are vaccinated at about the same age they begin to exhibit symptoms of autism, so it is not surprising that parents feel there is a connection.
Parents who don't vaccinate their children aren't just putting their own children at risk. Vaccinations benefit from herd immunity, i.e. that mass vaccination helps protect everyone, even the unvaccinated, by making it almost impossible for the virus to find a host to spread through. Parents who don't vaccinate their children chip away at the herd, putting even vaccinated individuals at risk (since no vaccine is 100% effective) as well as endangering infants too young to be vaccinated.
According to the New York Times, the back when vaccinations weren't common," each year nearly 4 million people in the United States were infected, 48,000 were hospitalized, 1,000 were chronically disabled and nearly 500 died."
Meales may be the tip of the iceberg. It is the most contagious of the childhood diseases, so it is the first to reemerge, but mumps and rubella may follow. The government and medical officials should reach out to parents to encourage them to vaccinate their children. Parents who refuse endanger their children and everybody else's.
Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Science Tuesday: Modern Day Indulgences
True, most of the time today, when we talk about indulgences we just mean something that's bad for us, that we permit ourselves. But it turns out coffee is also an indulgence in the best traditions of mideival Catholicism; it erases other misdeeds. According to this article from Science News:
The article goes on to say this result is seen mostly only in women, and stops short of recommending lazy smokers add a vice for their health. On the lazy side, I'm disappointed the only (non-athletic) way to deal with my sloth is to drink a beverage which makes me sick, I'll wait to here from Helen for the smoker's side.
One of the largest studies ever conducted shows that coffee drinkers die at almost the same rates as their non-drinking peers. But, after controlling for the fact that coffee drinkers tend to exercise less and smoke more, coffee is linked to a slightly lower death rate in both men and women...
Overall, participants who downed a few cups of coffee a day had about the same death rate as those who didn’t drink coffee, despite the fact that coffee drinkers tended to smoke more, drink more alcohol, not take vitamins and exercise less. All of those factors are linked to higher death rates.
The article goes on to say this result is seen mostly only in women, and stops short of recommending lazy smokers add a vice for their health. On the lazy side, I'm disappointed the only (non-athletic) way to deal with my sloth is to drink a beverage which makes me sick, I'll wait to here from Helen for the smoker's side.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Science Tuesday: Curing the Symptom/Curing with the Symptom
To follow up on an earlier post, I was complaining about the modern desire to ignore oversimplify systems, favoring quick fixes (hookworm-based pills) over an acknowledgement of the complexity of its dynamics. This week's New York Times Magazine's cover story was on "Pill Popping Pets," animals who are prescribed mood-regulating drugs. This article did make a good case for treating the (inbred) dogs that suffer from compulsive, self-harming behaviors. Plus, it included this quote:
More worrying is that fundamentally, these people are medicating their dogs for being dogs, whether the dogs are restless from being stuck in an appartment all day or are so attached to their owners that they panic when their owners leave. The most objectively egregious example are pet owners who demand diet pills for their pets. Just feed them less! For the most part, pet prescriptions are another easy-out solution that avoids acknowledging the real problem by focusing on the symptoms.
~~~
Then again, someone's found an awesome way to use symptoms to find cures (hat tip to Ars Technica for the story. By using data mining techniques on side effects of FDA approved drugs, scientists are finding the target mechanism of drugs and clarifying protein pathways. Unfortunately, some symptoms were just not helpful. According to Ars Technica, "so many drugs were reported to cause dizziness that it was nearly useless for the analysis."
Eli Lilly brought to market its own drug Reconcile last year. The only difference between it and Prozac is that Reconcile is chewable and tastes like beef.
More worrying is that fundamentally, these people are medicating their dogs for being dogs, whether the dogs are restless from being stuck in an appartment all day or are so attached to their owners that they panic when their owners leave. The most objectively egregious example are pet owners who demand diet pills for their pets. Just feed them less! For the most part, pet prescriptions are another easy-out solution that avoids acknowledging the real problem by focusing on the symptoms.
~~~
Then again, someone's found an awesome way to use symptoms to find cures (hat tip to Ars Technica for the story. By using data mining techniques on side effects of FDA approved drugs, scientists are finding the target mechanism of drugs and clarifying protein pathways. Unfortunately, some symptoms were just not helpful. According to Ars Technica, "so many drugs were reported to cause dizziness that it was nearly useless for the analysis."
No thanks, I'll just keep living in a world without smallpox
The NYT's Editorial Observer and I are on the outs. Commenting on Spain's recent resolution granting legal rights to chimps, the Observer has this to say:
Absolutely. I'm against the horrific conditions in which we raise our livestock, and I support discouraging the use of apes in circus-like performances. Most of us have no problem with outlawing needless cruelty. I just happen to think that "harmful medical research" is pretty darn needful.
I don't mean to downplay the suffering experienced by chimps in medical facilities. Richard Preston's excellent history of smallpox, The Demon in the Freezer details the horrible suffering of chimps infected with smallpox, and the scientist involved genuinely mourn for their charges. I think eliminating crippling diseases trumps our concern for the human-like nature of apes, just as crippling hunger would justify butchering and eating them. We shouldn't outlaw important medical research, but we should, just like the scientists Preston observes, understand the weight of what we are doing and mourn accordingly.
(Of course, I'll admit to being somewhat heartless in this matter. When I read in Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters (another great book) that Pasteur neglected to confirm that his TB cure worked, since this would have involved deliberately not treating babies for a control group. Unfortunately for science, TB was already in decline when Pasteur developed his treatment, so there's no confirmation that it works. I would have been in favor of an actual human trial.)
Strip away the goofier rhetoric of the ape-rights activists, and their claim is straightforward. Great apes are biologically very close to humans; chimps and humans share about 98 percent of their DNA. Apes have complex communication skills and close emotional bonds. They experience loneliness and sorrow. They deserve some respect.
Absolutely. I'm against the horrific conditions in which we raise our livestock, and I support discouraging the use of apes in circus-like performances. Most of us have no problem with outlawing needless cruelty. I just happen to think that "harmful medical research" is pretty darn needful.
I don't mean to downplay the suffering experienced by chimps in medical facilities. Richard Preston's excellent history of smallpox, The Demon in the Freezer details the horrible suffering of chimps infected with smallpox, and the scientist involved genuinely mourn for their charges. I think eliminating crippling diseases trumps our concern for the human-like nature of apes, just as crippling hunger would justify butchering and eating them. We shouldn't outlaw important medical research, but we should, just like the scientists Preston observes, understand the weight of what we are doing and mourn accordingly.
(Of course, I'll admit to being somewhat heartless in this matter. When I read in Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters (another great book) that Pasteur neglected to confirm that his TB cure worked, since this would have involved deliberately not treating babies for a control group. Unfortunately for science, TB was already in decline when Pasteur developed his treatment, so there's no confirmation that it works. I would have been in favor of an actual human trial.)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Science Tuesday: Healing with Hookworms
First it was leeches draining excess blood from grafts, then maggots began saving limbs from amputatation, now, hookworms may be next to make the leap from pest to prescription. Scienctist David Pritchard (profiled here) knows hookworms
(in limited dosage) are safe, since he had ten crawl through his skin and set up home in his gut. He believes that the worms can suppress immune function in people with severe allergies or autoimmune disorders. So far, so good.
This is one of the good arguments for not mindlessly annihilating species, even parasites. But Dr. Pritchard's long term goals seem to miss why this kind of science is so cool. He hopes to "to figure out exactly how the worms turn down the immune-system radar, so he can borrow the tactics to develop alternatives to immune-suppressant and allergy-fighting drugs."
The problem that the hookworms are dealing with is caused by not being aware of our connection with nature. Not in some Kumbaya, Mother Spirit way, but a simple humility and willingness to recognize that removing ourselves from nature can be debilitating. Irritable Bowel Syndrom, whose rates have been skyrocketing in an age of casually prescribed antibiotics, may be caused or exacerbated by destruction of intestinal bacteria.
It may be that no distillation of hookworms can reproduce the effect actual hookworms have in a human body. We may be desperately trying to remove ourselves from the environment, but it's important to remember we aren't just a sack of chemicals, we are an ecosystem within an ecosystem. Ultimately, recognizing this reality may produce solutions that are more effective, as well as objectively awesome.
(in limited dosage) are safe, since he had ten crawl through his skin and set up home in his gut. He believes that the worms can suppress immune function in people with severe allergies or autoimmune disorders. So far, so good.
The National Health Services ethics committee let him conduct a study in 2006 with 30 participants, 15 of whom received 10 hookworms each. Tests showed that after six weeks, the T-cells of the 15 worm recipients began to produce lower levels of chemicals associated with inflammatory response, indicating that their immune systems were more suppressed than those of the 15 placebo recipients. Despite playing host to small numbers of parasites, worm recipients reported little discomfort. Trial participants raved about their allergy symptoms disappearing.
This is one of the good arguments for not mindlessly annihilating species, even parasites. But Dr. Pritchard's long term goals seem to miss why this kind of science is so cool. He hopes to "to figure out exactly how the worms turn down the immune-system radar, so he can borrow the tactics to develop alternatives to immune-suppressant and allergy-fighting drugs."
The problem that the hookworms are dealing with is caused by not being aware of our connection with nature. Not in some Kumbaya, Mother Spirit way, but a simple humility and willingness to recognize that removing ourselves from nature can be debilitating. Irritable Bowel Syndrom, whose rates have been skyrocketing in an age of casually prescribed antibiotics, may be caused or exacerbated by destruction of intestinal bacteria.
It may be that no distillation of hookworms can reproduce the effect actual hookworms have in a human body. We may be desperately trying to remove ourselves from the environment, but it's important to remember we aren't just a sack of chemicals, we are an ecosystem within an ecosystem. Ultimately, recognizing this reality may produce solutions that are more effective, as well as objectively awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
