Influeza/MRSA a fatal combination

[The Atheist]

Did you say it three times or something?

That's bizzare, eh?

They must have a permanent link to Google when that phrase comes up.

 

[Plagiarius]

I give thanks for members sending me in the right direction regarding the safety of thimerosal. However I do not appreciate being accused of lying. Through my searches I found studies contradicting eachother, therefore whilst the information may have been easily available, drawing a definitive conclusion was not. I reiterate that I am not against vaccination, it is obvious that they have heralded many benefits for humanity, so do not attack me for being supposedly presumptive by being presumptive yourself. I am merely for establishing the truth in my mind. Thank you all again in helping me towards this.

A lot of the contradictory evidence was obtained from this video you may know of by an American physician called David Ayoub called Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda. Are his claims baseless? I would but I cannot post hyperlinks yet.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Yes that’s right, David Ayoub believes that the women’s rights movement is a governmental policy tool designed to reduce the population. He further believes that educating youngesters about unprotected sex is a bad thing and another policy tool. There’s definitely a tool around here. Not sure its this policy though.



Other evil-doers include UNICEF:

in a word….coercive population control, coercive reproductive, coercive abortion, coercive sterilsation….

a word David? That’s some word.

There’s lots more but frankly, I got bored of snorting tea out of my nose. This guy is not someone who should be associated with efforts to ‘educate’ people or children’s health. Now, where’s my black helicopter…?

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=414

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=405

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The fact that he talks about a "vaccine agenda" ought to get the alarm bells ringing about "conspiracy theorist". Does he actually have any evidence? No. Just the usual accusations without facts. It's like watching someone rant on how vaccines cause sterility. Okay. So how come people who are vaccinated are still having children?

 

[paximperium]

Excuse me? Care to re-read what I said? "There was nothing that could have saved the kid once the infection took hold." This is a fact based on what I know specifically about this case. I investigated the circumstances because at first I thought as you probably do, that someone didn't start the kid on the right antibiotic. That was not the case.

This is not MRSA pneumonia, this is influenza associated MRSA pneumonia. I recommend you do more reading on the subject.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5614a1.htm?s_cid=mm5614a1_e (Your own link)

As demonstrated by the cases in this report, secondary S. aureus pneumonia is a potentially catastrophic complication of influenza. S. aureus respiratory coinfections often develop into severe, necrotizing pneumonia with a relatively high case-fatality rate (33% during the influenza epidemic of 1968--1969) and rapid clinical progression (e.g., death within 24 hours after admission) (2). S. aureus pneumonia has been complicated further by the emergence of MRSA as a cause of infection among persons in the community without traditionally recognized MRSA risk factors (3). During the 2003--04 influenza season, 15 cases of influenza-associated CAP caused by MRSA and four deaths (fatality rate: 26.7%) were reported to CDC, generally in persons with no medical problems (1,4).

Particularly notable in the 10 cases described in this report is the short period between any respiratory symptom onset and either death or recovery of MRSA from the patient. Respiratory symptoms began a median of 3 days before recovery of MRSA, and four (67%) of six patients who died did so within 4 days of respiratory symptom onset. These short durations suggest that, in these cases, the influenza virus and MRSA infections likely occurred concomitantly rather than in the more classically described biphasic clinical course of CAP symptoms after influenza illness (6).

I stand by my statement. Bad and getting worst but scaremongering is dishonest.

And it is merely the facts I have posted about here. I repeat, it is the mom in me not the NP that is posting here. The death of children and young adults who only needed a flu vaccine to prevent it upsets me, literally. I can imagine how those parents of the WWU boy might have felt losing their son to something so easily prevented, if only they had known. I want the people in this forum, some of whom are my personal friends to know.

Fine, but do not justify this using fear. Use facts and evidence. I expect more from skeptics than to rely on emotional arguments and scaring people.

 

[paximperium]

Did you say it three times or something?

I didn't count. I believe twice.

That's bizzare, eh?

They must have a permanent link to Google when that phrase comes up.

Hmmmm...should I use Anti-Vax morons? What about Liars or poop heads? I try to mix it around a bit but get a bit lazy at times.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Use facts and evidence. I expect more from skeptics than to rely on emotional arguments and scaring people.

Facts and evidence were presented. That lead to an emotional reaction, but that is not what the post was based on (was not an emotional argument).
Emotions are allowed in response to the facts, we are all human.

 

[paximperium]

Facts and evidence were presented. That lead to an emotional reaction, but that is not what the post was based on (was not an emotional argument).
Emotions are allowed in response to the facts, we are all human.

And I agree with the gist of this post.

But the scary sounding "There was nothing that could have saved the kid once the infection took hold." is an appeal to emotion. It is a single anecdote and is there to scare people.

I do not consider it appropriate. I would prefer we don't stoop to anti-vaxer levels.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5614a1.htm?s_cid=mm5614a1_e (Your own link)
I stand by my statement. Bad and getting worst but scaremongering is dishonest.
Fine, but do not justify this using fear. Use facts and evidence. I expect more from skeptics than to rely on emotional arguments and scaring people.

You quote the statement, "These short durations suggest that, in these cases, the influenza virus and MRSA infections likely occurred concomitantly rather than in the more classically described biphasic clinical course of CAP symptoms after influenza illness" then go on to say you stand by your statement, "MRSA pneumonia is very very bad and has a much higher mortality rate compared to regular pneumonia but that statement is wrong. We do have treatments for it."?

Could you please explain how a new development of influenza/MRSA concomitant co-infection is the same as a secondary MRSA pneumonia?

And you ignored what I said, the fact so many people are unaware flu vaccine is indicated for healthy young people is why I posted the thread. Are you claiming this new development is already well publicized and most people are aware of the risk benefit profile of influenza vaccine?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I agree with the gist of this post.

But the scary sounding "There was nothing that could have saved the kid once the infection took hold." is an appeal to emotion. It is a single anecdote and is there to scare people.

I do not consider it appropriate. I would prefer we don't stoop to anti-vaxer levels.

Well, consider it what you want. It was accurately described as an anecdote. You added the claim I made a false generalization about all MRSA pneumonias. That was you falsely reading into what I said based on what I presume was your pre-existing belief about the subject.

Because my son was connected to the kid in question, I made a number of inquiries into the specifics of that case. I found out what his symptoms were, when he presented to the student health, what they did, when he was admitted to the hospital and that the hospital had him on everything they possibly could but it could not reverse the necrotizing pneumonia. On the contrary, your statement that this was treatable was false.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2007)

Researchers at the Texas A&M Health Science Center Institute of Biosciences and Technology at Houston have discovered a toxin present in the bacteria responsible for the current nationwide outbreak of staph infections also has a role in an aggressive pneumonia that is often fatal within 72 hours.

"The virulence of CA-MRSA (community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) strains that produce the PVL (Panton Valentine leukocidin) toxin presents a nightmare scenario," said M. Gabriela Bowden, Ph.D., research assistant professor at HSC-IBT and co-senior author. "If the community-acquired strain establishes itself in the hospital setting, it will be difficult to contain."

(emphasis mine)

So what reading about this new development have you done that suggests it is not a big deal?

 

[paximperium]

You quote the statement, "These short durations suggest that, in these cases, the influenza virus and MRSA infections likely occurred concomitantly rather than in the more classically described biphasic clinical course of CAP symptoms after influenza illness" then go on to say you stand by your statement, "MRSA pneumonia is very very bad and has a much higher mortality rate compared to regular pneumonia but that statement is wrong. We do have treatments for it."?

Could you please explain how a new development of influenza/MRSA concomitant co-infection is the same as a secondary MRSA pneumonia?

Don't have to, never claimed they are the same.
Co-infection: Flu+MRSA colonization-->rapid superinfection=very sick and fast

Secondary infection: Flu-->gets sick from flu-->gets infected by MRSA=Very sick but not so fast.

MRSA Pneumonia from Co-infections are more common since MRSA is starting to colonize the population. It is more aggressive than MRSA secondary infections but it is still treatable. Do you have evidence that says that MRSA co-infections are resistant to treatments?

And you ignored what I said, the fact so many people are unaware flu vaccine is indicated for healthy young people is why I posted the thread. Are you claiming this new development is already well publicized and most people are aware of the risk benefit profile of influenza vaccine?

Never claimed it and so I don't have to defend it.

I still don't see a justification for scaring people instead of more approproately informing them.

 

[paximperium]

Well, consider it what you want. It was accurately described as an anecdote. You added the claim I made a false generalization about all MRSA pneumonias. That was you falsely reading into what I said based on what I presume was your pre-existing belief about the subject.

What is my pre-existing belief about this subject?
If my original statement falsely generalized your statement than I apologize but I will not apologize for my opposition to your scaremongering and your continued overplaying of this issue.

Flu+MRSA is bad. Kids should get immunized. There are great reasons to do so, you don't have to overplay facts.

So what reading about this new development have you done that suggests it is not a big deal?

Enjoying your strawman? Where in this thread have I even hinted that "it is not a big deal"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Paxi, I'm going by what you've written.

You took my OP as alarmist. But you cited claims I did not make.

She claimed that there is no cure for MRSA which not true.

You followed that with:

Community-acquired MRSA(as opposed to hospital) is everywhere and while it is very aggressive, vancomycin, linezolid and even bactrim is still effective against it.

Those statements are a non sequiturs to what I said which was:

There was nothing that could have saved the kid once the infection took hold

Since this person got all the treatment possible and still died, that statement is correct. Are you suggesting he was inadequately treated? Are you suggesting if only the hospital had [fill in the blank] he could have been saved? ONLY PREVENTION in this case would have prevented this death.

Do you have evidence that says that MRSA co-infections are resistant to treatments?

As a matter of fact, yes, that is the case. But 'resistant' is the wrong word. The rapidity of the necrosis is the difference in these flu associated cases. From the CDC article already cited:

As demonstrated by the cases in this report, secondary S. aureus pneumonia is a potentially catastrophic complication of influenza. S. aureus respiratory coinfections often develop into severe, necrotizing pneumonia with a relatively high case-fatality rate (33% during the influenza epidemic of 1968--1969) and rapid clinical progression (e.g., death within 24 hours after admission) (2). S. aureus pneumonia has been complicated further by the emergence of MRSA as a cause of infection among persons in the community without traditionally recognized MRSA risk factors (3). During the 2003--04 influenza season, 15 cases of influenza-associated CAP caused by MRSA and four deaths (fatality rate: 26.7%) were reported to CDC, generally in persons with no medical problems (1,4)....

...Particularly notable in the 10 cases described in this report is the short period between any respiratory symptom onset and either death or recovery of MRSA from the patient. Respiratory symptoms began a median of 3 days before recovery of MRSA, and four (67%) of six patients who died did so within 4 days of respiratory symptom onset....

Children's flu cases turn deadly after bacterial infection; Lisa Schnirring * Staff Writer; Jul 11, 2007 (CIDRAP News)

Health officials in Perth, Australia, last week advised parents to seek medical care quickly for young children with respiratory symptoms, after three children under age 5 died of pneumonia as a complication of "mild" influenza A infections. ...

... Evidence points to a synergistic relationship between S aureus and influenza, according to an article in the June 2006 issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases. Flu viruses appear to increase S aureus adhesion in the respiratory tract, and S aureus-specific enzymes (proteases) appear to increase flu virus replication. Also, influenza A virus strains appear to decrease destruction of S aureus by immune cells called phagocytes, making patients more susceptible to bacterial coinfection.

In May the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an alert after noticing an increase in the number of S aureus infections in children with flu. The CDC said that from October 2006 through early May, 55 influenza deaths in children had been reported. Twenty of the children (out of 51 for whom relevant data were available) had bacterial infections, and 16 of these were infected with S aureus.

(emphasis mine)

Since you are not claiming this new development is already well publicized and most people are aware of the risk benefit profile of influenza vaccine, then how do you suggest one shares the information with the public without what you call scaremongering? "Gee it's rare folks but flu vaccines are a good idea anyway"?

Considering the sharp up-tick in cases over the previous years, should we wait until there are a thousand deaths before ringing the alarm bells? Ten thousand? Since the cases were not officially reportable, we don't know how many fatalities occurred in otherwise healthy children and young adults last year from this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's some more scaremongering fact citing opinions for you:

Highly Lethal MRSA Pneumonia Associated with Influenza; By Eric Toner, M.D., June 21, 2007

All 10 cases occurred in Louisiana and Georgia during December 2006 and January 2007, among previously healthy individuals aged 4 months to 48 years, who had concomitant or recent influenza-like illnesses (6 of 10 had laboratory confirmed influenza). The case fatality rate (CFR) was extraordinarily high at 60%. All of the patients were severely ill: 7 of 10 had multi-lobar infiltrates, and 2 of the 3 patients with single-lobar infiltrates died. The median time from the onset of respiratory symptoms to death was only 3.5 days....

...During the 1968 pandemic in Hong Kong, the CFR for S. aureus-associated pneumonia was 33%, and in many cases, it was associated with death within 24 hours after admission. 2

In recent years, MRSA has been recognized as a possible cause of influenza-associated pneumonia as well. During the 2003-04 influenza season, there were 15 cases of influenza-associated pneumonia due to MRSA, with 4 deaths (CFR of 27%).1

(emphasis mine)

Factors Predicting Mortality in Necrotizing Community-Acquired Pneumonia Caused by Staphylococcus aureus Containing Panton-Valentine Leukocidin

Conclusions. Airway bleeding, erythroderma, and leukopenia are associated with fatal outcome from Panton-Valentine leukocidin–positive S. aureus necrotizing pneumonia. More work is needed to develop more efficacious therapy against this highly lethal disease.

Oh but gee, it would have been treatable.....maybe if they lived longer than 3 days!

 

[Plagiarius]

The fact that he talks about a "vaccine agenda" ought to get the alarm bells ringing about "conspiracy theorist". Does he actually have any evidence? No. Just the usual accusations without facts. It's like watching someone rant on how vaccines cause sterility. Okay. So how come people who are vaccinated are still having children?

This is the thing though, the Doctor actually went over a lot of data of some studies regarding both sides. Why ask me a question that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about originally? (Autism). Here's a question, did you actually watch the seminar? I still cannot post links by the way.

Naz RK.

Division of Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio 43614-5806, USA. Rnaz@mco.edu

The world's population is growing at a tremendous rate, affecting growth and development. Apart from this population growth, unintended pregnancies resulting in elective abortions continue to be a major public health issue. In over half of these unintended pregnancies, the women have used some type of contraception. Thus, there is an urgent need for a better method of contraception that is acceptable, effective and available. The contraceptive choices available to women at this time include steroid contraceptives, intrauterine devices, barrier methods, spermicides, natural family planning, male and female sterilisation, and recently available emergency contraceptives. Contraceptive vaccines (CVs) may provide viable and valuable alternatives that can fulfill most, if not all, properties of an ideal contraceptive. Since both the developed and most of the developing nations have an infrastructure for mass immunisation, the development of vaccines for contraception is an exciting proposition. The molecules that are being explored for CV development either target gamete production (gonadotropin releasing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone), gamete function (zona pellucida [ZP] proteins and sperm antigens) or gamete outcome (human chorionic gonadotropin [hCG]). Disadvantages of CVs targeting gamete production are that they affect sex steroids and/or show only a partial effect in reducing fertility.. CVs targeting gamete function are better choices. Vaccines based on ZP proteins are quite efficacious in producing contraceptive effects. However, they invariably induce oophoritis affecting sex steroids. Sperm antigens constitute the most promising and exciting targets for CVs. Several sperm-specific antigens have been delineated in several laboratories and are being actively explored for CV development. Antisperm antibody-mediated immunoinfertility provides a naturally occurring model to indicate how an antisperm vaccine will work in humans. Vaccines targeting gamete outcome primarily focus on the hCG molecule. The hCG vaccine is the first vaccine to undergo phase I and II clinical trials in humans. Both the efficacy and the lack of immunotoxicity have been reasonably well demonstrated for this vaccine. The present studies focus on increasing the immunogenicity and efficacy of this birth control vaccine.

Li HP, He XJ, Tang CL, Yao XY, Li DJ.

Laboratory for Reproductive Immunology, Hospital and Institute of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Fudan University Shanghai Medical College, Shanghai, China.

Contraceptive vaccines based on hCGbeta have not met clinical application because of poor immunogenicity. In the present study, the eukaryotic expression vectors pCI-gs-signal-6His-hCGbeta and pCI-gs-signal-6His-hCGbeta-hC3d3 were constructed, and transfected into CHO cells with aid of Lipofectaine 2000 reagent to gain the secretory recombinant protein. Isolated B cells from human peripheral blood, combined B cells with T cells, and PBMC were treated in vitro, respectively, with 1 nM, 10 nM, 100 nM hCGbeta, hCGbeta-hC3d3 or PWM for 12 days. Immunoglobulin (Ig) and anti-hCG antibody levels in the supernatant were measured by an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The expressions of CD80/CD86 on B cells, and CD154/CD25 on T cells, were analyzed by flow cytometry (FCM), and IL-2 production was assayed by ELISA. It was found that the Ig levels in the B-cell supernatants, the combined B with T cells, and PBMC treated with 100 nM hCGbeta-C3d3 fusion protein were 4-fold, 10-fold and 10.9-fold more, respectively, than that of hCGbeta. The anti-hCG antibody could be produced in the combined B cells with T cells, as well as PBMC challenged with 100 nM hCGbeta-C3d3, but no anti-hCG antibody was produced in the challenge with hCGbeta. The hCGbeta-hC3d3 fusion protein enhanced the expression of CD80 and CD86 on B cells, especially CD86 (P<0.05), and significantly increased the expression of CD154 and CD25 molecules on T cells compared to that of hCGbeta (P<0.05). The hCGbeta-hC3d3 promoted human PBMC producing more IL-2 than hCGbeta. These findings indicate that the fusion of hC3d3 to hCGbeta, as a means of harnessing the adjuvant potential of the innate immune system, may contribute to a more efficient humoral immune response, and might provide a potential application of protein vaccine strategies in humans in the future.

 

[Cuddles]

Do you have evidence that says that MRSA co-infections are resistant to treatments?

The "R" in "MRSA" should be a slight hint here.

 

[casebro]

Are the only numbers quoted in the above cites 10 in Louisana/Georgia, 15 in the world, and 10 in Oz?

Sounds like another Ebola/Sars/Bird flu kind of "warning".

 

[paximperium]

The "R" in "MRSA" should be a slight hint here.

Methicillin-Resistant. Not Vancomycin(which is appearing), Linezolid or bactrim resistent...yet.

 

[paximperium]

Are the only numbers quoted in the above cites 10 in Louisana/Georgia, 15 in the world, and 10 in Oz?

Sounds like another Ebola/Sars/Bird flu kind of "warning".

My exact point.

People should be aware and educated about this but this alarmist attitude does not help. It just alienates the population when a real alarm needs to be sounded.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My exact point.

People should be aware and educated about this but this alarmist attitude does not help. It just alienates the population when a real alarm needs to be sounded.

Let me save you the time, Pax. I've tried this line of argument and SG is having none of it. But at least she can't tell you to stop pretending you've got a medical education.