cshapiro

You are correct.  The term "flu" is overused and misunderstood as is the flu shot.  Having the flu means being infected with one of the several hundred strains of the influenza virus and is a serious illness.  Influenza is categorized as either type A, B or C, A being the worst.  A severe epidemic of type A breaks out in 3-5 year cycles.  Flu is a disease of the respiratory  system and can lead to complicated bronchitis and pneumonia.  A case of flu usually lasts several weeks and in the US there are 20 000 deaths a year from flu.  This is why in Canada and the US flu shots are recommended for everyone.  There is no real risk from the shot and the few minor side effects outweigh the possible consequences of infection.  One common myth is that you can catch flu from the flu shot but this is not true.  There is no live virus in today's flu shots and no chance of catching flu from the shot.  I'm pretty sure doctors in the UK  recommend the shot as well, just the government doesn't want to foot the bill.  I would recommend it even if you have to pay out of pocket.  Of course there  is the famous man flu where some sniffling sends him to bed for a week.  A woman will go to work and go about her day with a knife in her back apologizing for the knife being in everyone's way.

penny3760

Hi everyone!  How's everyone doing? Great I hope!  I have been keeping busy playing the games.  I am so addicted to them.  My husband says that I love those games more than I love him!    I just wanted to say hi to everyone and to wish all of you a Happy Holiday Season.  

shinny

Hi Penny, it's great to hear from you. You've been really missed around the forum. Good to see you back

shinny

Lol I did know that about the flu virus. I guess the root of it for me is that if I'm well enough to fight something off myself, then I should. I guess if I had a compromised immune system or was older than I am, I might consider it.

Something that really annoys me here is how frequently our doctors give out antibiotics. In fact, I read somewhere recently that Irish Doctors give out antibiotics more than any other European country ! I remember being in with a doctor who was standing in for my regular Dr. She told me that I had a viral infection that was causing the cold that I had (I had gone in as I was flying to New York the following day and was afraid that my ears might give me trouble on the plane) - Anyway, she said I could fly but gave me a prescription for antibiotics. I said to her, but I thought antibiotics can't treat a viral infection. She was a bit take aback and then said, yes but this is in case it turns into a bacterial infection! I was gobsmacked. I hate taking antibiotics. I just told her no thanks, I'd cross the bridge IF I came to it.

Then they wonder why we have Superbugs and MRSA !

cshapiro

The thing I think is overlooked by most people is, when there is a virulent outbreak of type A influenza, it can be serious for people with no other risk factors.  I work in a pediatrics hospital and last year 8 children, who were otherwise perfectly healthy, died from complications due to influenza.  In the US there are 20 000 deaths attributed to flu in an average year and that number as much as doubles in years with more serious outbreaks.  Of the total  number of deaths, about one quarter of them were people with no other risk factors.  Influenza is very contagious and is an airborne contagen, which makes it very easy to catch even with a perfectly normal immune system.  It is possible to catch the flu even after immunization but the illness is much less severe.  There are no reported fatalities in the low risk group of the population that has been immunized.

As for your story of being offered antibiotics for a viral infection, I am appalled.  I was under the impression that in Europe this was much less of a problem than in North America.  Here the issue is, patients often come to the doctor, and tell him/her what they want and lazy doctors don't want to spend the time arguing and more importantly, explaining, why they don't need the drugs.  Physicians have a responsibility to educate there patients, not patronize them.  Besides the problem of creating resistant bacteria,  there are some serious side effects, particularly for children, that arise from antibiotic treatment in the absence of a bacterial infection.  These include,  PERMANENT colitis, jaundice, severe hepatic dysfunction and even total liver failure, to name a few.  Antibiotics have enough adverse effects to deal with when they are necessary, but to take them when they aren't is crazy.  Every year in flu season, when the ER is packed, we announce to the people waiting that antibiotics will not  be given out for flu and half the people just get up and walk out.

shinny

I do hear what you are saying, but we might just have to agree to disagree. It's a personal thing for me.

I agree with you about antibiotics. The Minister for Health is trying to crack down on this problem. I believe the same issue happens in the UK as MRSA is as much of a problem there as it is here. I'm not sure about Europe as a whole though. Guess what it all boils down to? Money! Yes, the pharmacutical companies here are literally in the pockets of the Doctors. It's disgraceful. I'm amazed at the amount of people who go to the Dr and say they are told that their Cholesterol is slightly elevated, for instance. The Dr tells them they need to go on a statin and they don't question it. It happened recently with an Aunt of mine. So I said to her what were your numbers?, and she says oh 5.5 (below 5.0 is ok here) I then say, ok so how much of that was LDL and Triglycerides & lastly your HDL. She looked at me blankly and I said I can't believe she agreed to go on a drug that has to be monitored for the potential damage it could do to your liver. Or in the long run the damage it can do to your Heart, Kidneys etc. When the reason your cholesterol may have been slightly over is because your HDL was higher, which is OK!!

At the end of the day, you need to look out for yourself ! It frustrates me that people don't question the Doctors and that the Doctors bang them on tablets because they get a kick back from the Pharmacutical companies.....!! It's outrageous.

Ok, rant over !!



[ Last edited by shinny at 11-27-2008 20:08 ]

cshapiro

Here in many ways it is worse.  In Canada and the US the drug companies buy data from the pharmacies that contains the information about how often the drugs are prescribed broken down by doctor.  So, if a doctor, lets say, stops prescribing a certain antibiotic that he always has used, he will "coincidentally" start to get more visits from that drug rep.  I have tried this several times and after three months they stop being subtle and come buy the office almost every day with lunch and pastries as well as some gifts for the wife and kids.  When I found out about this(I was still in Boston and they don't teach this in Med school, at least, not in the Glaxco lecture hall or the Abbott pharmaceuticals pathology lab)I started a policy that I maintain to this day.  I don't meet with drug reps, EVER.  It's not worth my time or the few lousy trinkets and it isn't in my patients best interest.  They still come by, and try.  They sit in my waiting room for hours.  They even sneak in and leave behind displays and other stuff which just go straight to the bin.  I have heard of  them posing as patients but since I only see kids it would be hard for them to pull that off with me.  
  You should know (as should your aunt's doctor) that the diagnostic imperative for determining high cholesterol is the ratio between LDL and HDL of less than 2.1 .  Total serum levels of less than 5.18 was on old guideline that is not as important as the ratio.

[ Last edited by cshapiro at 11-28-2008 14:05 ]

shinny

Well it gives me some comfort to hear you say that, to be quite frank. I'm glad not all doctors are "influenced" by the pharmaceutical/drug companies. I can't believe the lengths that some of them will go to. There is so much money in it though and that's going to show the ugly side of people!!

I remember reading that somewhere before, about the ratio. So that would mean your LDL divided by your HDL.

My uncle is a surgeon in Austria and when he was over with us the last time I was talking to him about cholesterol. He was saying to me that there is a belief now that the statin drugs cause more damage than than actually having elevated cholesterol itself. I found that amazing. I think we still don't know enough about it. Plus, now they are linking too low of a cholesterol level to mental health issues and some cancers.

shinny

I find all of this fascinating by the way. You'd never guess, lol !! So I really appreciate your thoughts on it.

cshapiro

Cholesterol is the misunderstood molecule.  It is found in every cell in the body ans is necessary for all animal life.  Low density lipoprotein is used in cell construction and when we are building fat cells it ends up stuck to the walls of our arteries.  High density lipoprotein is used to transport fat from cells and deposit it in the liver for metabilisation and will remove LDL as well.  Inadequate amounts of cholesterol would lead to defects in the cells the body was trying to make.
Typically, a LDL of less than 3.36 is considered "good" an HDL of above .9 is also good and totals should be less than 5.18.  But it is more important to have a higher ratio  of LDL to HDL.  If someone had an LDL 4.0 and an HDL 2.0, they are better off than the person with the so called ideal numbers quoted above.  Even though they have a total lipid level of 6, which is high, they are at a much lower risk level.  The ratio should ideally be above .4 (ldl divided by hdl).  This number has proven to be a much greater indicator than total levels or even ldl levels.  Since I am a surgeon, I don't really prescribe a lot of drugs and I don't ever deal with statins.  Even more so because I only treat children but there is so much pressure by drug companies to expand use.  At the last pediatric seminar I was at there was talk of starting to prescribe statins to children as young as 8 years old.  A professor of mine is doing research which suggests that CIA drugs (Calcium intake antagonists, a widely prescribed heart drug that is supposed to prevent heart attacks) may be responsible for thousands of deaths.  When he published his journal article, he faced threats, ridicule and numerous attempts to discredit him personally.  As to the possibility that statins cause more damage than that which they cure, I don't know.  One thing is true, and that is that statins are more dangerous than they are made out to be.  Besides liver toxicity there is mounting evidence of pulmonary issues and long term muscle tone deterioration.  Statins are very dangerous when combined with a large number of drugs, some of them very common.  There have been many cases of death due to statin/erytheromycin interaction, so you had better hope that whoever is treating you is paying attention since it is such a commonly prescribed antibiotic.  High cholesterol can be very dangerous but I would say, having only slightly high numbers wouldn't be enough of a reason to treat with statins.  I would also urge you to consider other risk factors into the equation(previous heart attack, hypertension, arrhythmias, blocked arteries etc.  Of course it is never to early to treat with healthy eating habits and most importantly, exercise.

shinny

I totally agree that it's misunderstood too. As time goes on, more and more will be known about it.

How is everyone else doing? It was my birthday yesterday, ended up being a very quiet one for me, which I was very happy about. It's freezing here at the moment, so I preferred sitting in by the fire !!

studiojek

I just asked about you! Glad everything's ok!

Hi everyone! Hope you're all keeping warm. To all my fellow Americans, happy belated Thanksgiving Day! My visit with my parents was nice, they left this morning for the airport - but we'll be seeing each other again in a month so it's much easier saying goodbye!

Happy Happy Bday Shinny!

waterlilybarb

I feel awful!  We had to give my Mum's dog away today.   He went to a really good home, but I just wish I was well enough to take proper care of him so she could have kept him even a little longer.  He was a bigger dog, and I just couldn't keep up with the amount of exercise he needed AND take care of everything else too.  I have a feeling there will be a lot of good-byes in the new year.

shinny

Thanks Studio !!!

Barb, sorry to hear that. Clearly you made the right decision, but that's not going to make it any easier.

waterlilybarb

You can say that twice and mean it.

imarielle626

I haven't had time to catch up from what I missed yet, but I just wanted to check in and say "Hi".  I'm back from my very short break for Thanksgiving.  It was nice to be with my family even if it was just for the weekend.  Well I'm off to bed...it was a long weekend!  Hope everyone is doing well!

studiojek

I'm so sorry Barb =( That's got to be really hard and sad.

themegababe

Sorry to hear that Barb.

And sorry I have been gone, school is wrapping up for the semester and I have been BUSY,  hopefully I will be around more now!

waterlilybarb

Thanks gals.   We're getting used to not having the dog around.  It's harder on my Mum, but she's a pragmatist too.  Honestly, it came just at the right time because we got dumped on with snow yesterday and I would have been hard-pressed to walk the dog AND shovel the driveway, sidewalk and clean the car.

Things have been a bit busy on my end too, but it's great to see and hear from you all.

studiojek

Definitely sounds like it's getting easier to deal with having to give away the dog, I'm glad. Don't hurt yourself with all that shoveling though!!