[Diet for Hypertension]

3 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Thanks!
 

I wonder if there are websites with recipes etc . . .  

Oodles!  First hit was Mayo Clinic's site with recipes

[Diet for Hypertension]

I think the DASH diet is still the medical standard.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

6 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I see what you're saying, makes sense. However I will again point out the propoganda/mental nature of the word choice. I was CORRECTED by a doctor when I used the wrong term, so it's very important to them what we call it.

Medical terms generally have precise medical meanings. I don't think that using medical terms in a manner consistent with their accepted definitions is propaganda.

I will add that patients mis-use medical terms all the time.  When taking a history, I often have to probe to see if, when a  patient uses a medical term to describe a symptom, does that word mean to them what it means to me (and any other doctor or medical professional).  Experience has taught me that I can't assume that patients know the definitions of medical terms, or use them in a way that's consistent with the medical definition.   As simple as the word "fever".  Medically, this means an elevation in body temperature above normal, not caused by the environment.  You'd think that most people would know this, but plenty don't.  They will endorse the symptom of fever, but what they actually mean is that they feel really crummy.  They may not have taken their temperature, or even had someone feel their forehead to see if they feel hot.  They have no idea if they've actually had a fever.  But they will tell me they have had a fever, because they feel really crummy, and in their minds that's a fever.  There are plenty of situations where this matters.  A lot. This kind of miscommunication can cause medical errors, and can be very dangerous.  So, yes, doctors care that the words you use actually mean what you think they mean.  Otherwise accurate communication becomes impossible.  I don't go around CORRECTING people, but will explain that the term they've used/mis-used has a medical meaning, and therefore means something different to me and other medical people than it might mean to them.  

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

5 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm pretty sure the protocol here is 15 minutes for most people, 30 minutes for people who have had an anaphylaxis reaction to anything.  My husband worked a vaccine event (doing data entry); one of the questions was about if you've ever had a serious allergic reaction to anything and they put those people in a different waiting area.  There was a woman who fell after getting the vaccine.  She was 87, not very stable, wasn't even hurt really, but there was a protocol that they had to go through and it was investigated as if the vaccine had caused the fall.  It's just the way the process works.

During the phase 3 studies, there was a person who was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING  a week after receiving the vaccine.  Because he was in a vaccine study, they had to do a whole write up before determining that his death after being struck by lightning was not related to the vaccine.   

This is true here.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Thanks for sharing the article. I used to read Mercola years ago and got busy. He's bringing up some points I had wondered about. I had noticed they were calling them vaccinations, not immunizations, and wondered why. The medical community would slam anyone to the hilt who calls childhood vaccinations vaccinations, but now with covid it's vaccine, not immunization. So he's definitely onto a nuance there I hadn't quite understood. 

 

That's flatly not true.  The medical community uses both words.

The words vaccination and immunization have different medical meanings.  (Colloquially, they tend to get used interchangeably, but formally, they are not the same thing)

Roughly, vaccination means the act of administering a vaccine.  It's a very narrow term.  Immunization is more broad and includes what happens after the vaccine is administered - the biological process of becoming immune to a disease because of a vaccine.

Childhood vaccines (and all vaccines) are called vaccines because that's what they are called, by the medical community and everyone else.  Childhood immunization is a broader term and encompasses the desired outcome.  Childhood vaccination is correct if talking just about administering jabs.  For example, one might go to a vaccination clinic to get vaccinated, as part of an immunization program.

edited to fix link

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Well I like data, so I just searched this board for the terms "peer review" and "peer reviewed." I read the first 100 hits for "peer reviewed" and the first 50 hits for "peer review." I stopped at 50 for the latter term because a large portion of those referred to students reviewing each other's writing, and most of the other mentions were in the context of discussing peer review in general — how it works, why it's important, etc. I stopped at 100 hits for "peer reviewed" because at that point I was getting results as far back as 2012 and many were along the lines of "can anyone recommend some peer reviewed studies on XYZ..."

So here's what I found:

I found 23 instances where someone posted a link to, or summary of, research results and included a caveat along the lines of  “this study seems interesting/promising, but note that it is not peer reviewed yet…”

I found 7 instances where lack of peer review was mentioned as one of several criticisms of a research study, article, or anecdotal information. There was also a discussion in the Stella Immanuel thread about the importance of peer review, but no one suggested that the only issue with Immanuel's claims was lack of peer review — the discussion was more like "real research is disseminated via publication in peer reviewed journals, not youtube videos."

Out of that sample of 150 posts, I did not find one in which someone dismissed a study out of hand for no reason other than lack of peer review. It's possible I somehow missed a few, but the claim that this is common here does not match the data.

The closest comments I could find to your claim were a post that said “I have not read any peer reviewed studies on essential oils and depression…” and a post criticizing an article about plastic bag use, saying the author had not provided any evidence to back up their claims or cited any peer reviewed studies.

So if you count those two posts you'd have 2 bucks. If you deducted a dollar for each of the posts by people who posted research they agreed with while openly acknowledging that these were just preprints and not yet peer reviewed, you'd have -$21.

But your little study reviewing peer review has not been peer reviewed, so.....

Just kidding.  I couldn't help myself 🙂

 

 

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

1 minute ago, PeterPan said:

Yes, that's the article I was referring to. However I hit my head several times sledding yesterday and am taking it easy, sorry. Y'all can keep gabbing but I'm not up for coherent debate. I've had concussions several times already and when I hit my head it usually flares up. It's not all the way to a concussion but it's not too good either. I'm going to go for a couple things tomorrow and hopefully it gets rid of the dizziness. Messed up my leg and got bruised too. 

I hope you feel better soon!

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

8 minutes ago, Pen said:

it gives the feeling that the vaccine is only considered to be protective in a 3 month less 2 week at the start window. 

I think only because the vaccine is so new that data beyond that window doesn't exist yet.  I predict that the window will be extended once robust data exist.

[How to type math?]

My DS13 has terrible handwriting.  Really terrible.  We are working on remediating that, but I'm not sure that it's actually fixable.

In the meantime, his terrible handwriting is really getting in the way of math - he's doing Singapore Dimensions 7.  Problems are complex enough that he needs to show the work, and the work involves multiple steps.  Inevitably, he gets tripped up because he can't read his own bad writing from one step to the next (x's look like y's, t's look like +'s, 9's look like g's, exponents get mixed up with non-exponents, etc).

He's a good typist. I think that typing his math work would be a good solution - either just for now, until we get the handwriting under control, or maybe even forever if he really takes to it.  I wonder if anyone knows of word processing software for math?  That would make it possible to easily type equations with fractions, exponents etc?  Such thing must exist?

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

6 hours ago, katilac said:

Where have you seen it officially stated that no one will die from the vaccine? 

I personally don't see why the possibility of an annual covid vaccine would cause cynicism. Obviously, we'd prefer a one-and-done, but the flu vaccine is annual and it takes me about 5 minutes per year (or 30 seconds if it happens to be available while I'm at the doctor). 

Also, can you point me to the CDC guidelines you're talking about? I still don't quite understand what you're getting at or what your reference to 3 months means. Are you just saying that it seems like the covid vaccine might need to be repeated? 

If anyone can link to a thread where this is stated, I'd be interested in reading it. 

I think @PeterPan means this guidance from the CDC about vaccinated individuals being excused from quarantine after exposure if they meed these criteria:

"However, vaccinated persons with an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine if they meet all of the following criteria^†:

• Are fully vaccinated (i.e., ≥2 weeks following receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series, or ≥2 weeks following receipt of one dose of a single-dose vaccine)
• Are within 3 months following receipt of the last dose in the series
• Have remained asymptomatic since the current COVID-19 exposure

Persons who do not meet all 3 of the above criteria should continue to follow current quarantine guidance after exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19."

I think she's mistakenly conflated not having to quarantine with not masking.  Maybe?  Or @PeterPan did you mean something else and I'm way off base?

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

9 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I'm picturing these really polite Canadian cells just asking the virus to leave, saying, "So um, think you could move on now, eh?" rather than killing the cells. 

You forgot the Sorry.  Fixed that for you:

"Sorry! So um, think you could move on now, eh?"

[Teach me how to eat an avocado]

I like to eat it straight out of the half-shell with a spoon, drizzled with balsamic vinegar.

Botanically a fruit, culinarily a vegetable.

Learn how to remove the pit without cutting yourself.  Seriously, avocado is on the top three foods that land people in the ED for stitches list, along with frozen hamburger patties (trying to separate with a knife) and bagels.   Round foods are dangerous, apparently.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

I'm perseverating on Hank Aaron, forgive me.

Coroners here primarily focus on manner of death (natural, accident/misadventure, homocide, suicide, undetermined).  They investigate the cause of death for unnatural deaths, including indetermined.  Natural deaths do not generally get investigated by the coroner, and generally to not get autopsied (with some exceptions.  Every tenth nursing home death triggers an investigation here, for example, for oversight reasons.).  And not every investigation leads to an autopsy either.

Medical Examiner systems operate somewhat different than coroner systems, and I am not very familiar with them.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

40 minutes ago, kand said:

This is a narrative being pushed by anti-vax activist Robert F Kennedy. He wrote an article spread far and wide across unreliable websites saying this. The Fulton County Medical Examiner who declares the death to be of natural causes in fact.

”In a statement emailed to AFP Fact Check, the county medical examiner, Karen Sullivan, said: “There was no information suggestive of an allergic or anaphylactic reaction to any substance which might be attributable to recent vaccine distribution.”

She added: “In addition, examination of Mr. Aaron’s body did not suggest his death was due to any event other than that associated with his medical history.”

Hank Aaron died two weeks before his 87th birthday. Hardly suspicious for a man of his age to pass away of natural causes. It’s gross that people are using him and his death and memory in this way. 

So the ME did examine his body.  Thanks, that's helpful.   Is this routine in the US for all deaths, does anyone know?  Here, bodies go straight from hospital to funeral home, unless there is an indication for a coroner's case (any manner of death other than natural)

(My province has a Coroner system rather than a Medical Examiner system)

 

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

Tangent:  Autopsies aren't done on the vast majority of decedents in Canada, and American data is similar  - only about 5% are autopsied.   MD's are good at determining the cause of death without an autopsy - it's not usually much of a mystery.  The vast majority of cause of death data is based on MD clinical judgement rather than autopsy. 

I'm not familiar with the Aaron case, but presumably, if the coroner wasn't satisfied that the manner of death was natural (vs accident, injury including injury from medication or vaccine injury, homocide, suicide, misadventure etc), then the coroner could have and would have investigated and ordered an autopsy.  I presume that since the coroner didn't, then the coroner was satisfied that the cause of death was natural.

All the news reports that come up on my quick google search say things like "The Fulton County Medical Examiner's office on Monday confirmed Hank Aaron died of natural causes" but don't link to the coroner's original statement or press release. Some state than an autopsy wasn't done.  I didn't see anything that suggested the coroner's office was questioning/uncertain about or the manner of death.   @Halftime HopeDo you have a link you could share?  I'm interested in the details.

[My kid's critique MUS, Canadian edition :)]

11 minutes ago, caffeineandbooks said:

That is gold!

We have the old Singapore math books, and my kids occasionally like to rewrite a problem too. Book:  "Mrs Wang buys 1236 chicken satay sticks and 1007 beef satay sticks for a party."  My kids: "How many guests will be disappointed there are no sausage rolls, chips and sandwiches?"

My kids would love this.  DH's family is Indonesian-Canadian.  Mak makes awesome satay.

[My kid's critique MUS, Canadian edition :)]

Official Answer, "Because it goes the whole way around the city."

Meaning encircles the city?  And the highway is circle-shaped?  I don't know.  I think it's a bad question, and I will let DS's answer stand on merit.

[My kid's critique MUS, Canadian edition :)]

In case this is helpful to anyone:  The MUS Canadian Edition has been "Canadianized" by changing units from imperial to metric, for many, but not all, of the exercises, and not always in ways that make sense.  There is still a lot of focus on imperial units.  (I suppose that it's not a bad thing that my kids will be fluent in ounces and pounds and gallons and quarts and pints and feet and yards and miles and pennies.)  The rest of the content remains American.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

36 minutes ago, bethben said:

From what I understand in general, the vaccine doesn’t stop you from getting Covid, but reduces the symptoms so people could technically be asymptomatic or get Covid mildly.   IMO, that makes the vaccine more dangerous for the elderly population.  Basically, a person who is carrying Covid would come to work because they feel fine.  If they were sick, they would (in theory) stay home.  But because they are now asymptomatic because of the vaccine, they are now carrying it to vulnerable populations?  
 

Also, from what I understand of the vaccine, it is newish technology in that it causes your own cells to create a Covid spike of sorts —I know it’s a lot more complicated than that, but this is the skinny.  Then, instead of your cells learning how to defeat an inactive or weakened outside invader, the invader your body is destroying is your own cells.  That sounds like an autoimmune crisis just waiting to happen.  When your body destroys its own cells, that’s an autoimmune disease.  My thought is that the nurses who are rejecting the vaccine have a decent level of education in biology and very much understand why they are rejecting the vaccine.  

 

35 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't believe that's correct. Last I checked, the vaccine seriously reduces transmissibility as well as symptoms. 

Anyone know if I'm right about that? I haven't kept good track, but I thought there was starting to be data about that. 

 

32 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

There's a difference between "they can still get it," which is certainly true, and "they are just as likely to spread the virus as before," which I think is false. If their chance of spreading the virus is now much lower, they are safer to have around other people. 

I think the data on vaccination and transmission in vaccinated people just doesn't exist yet (or at least not in a robust way).  I think the data will show that the vaccine actually does decrease transmission substantially.  But, loosening policy based on guesses is unwise.  I think that policy will be relaxed once the data support it.

[My kid's critique MUS, Canadian edition :)]

He's not wrong - there are an awful lot of word problems based on US numbered highways.  Beltway isn't a common term here.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

To be clear, I was talking specifically about influenza vaccine policy.  No-one has a covid vaccine policy yet.  But I expect it will evolve the same way, once vaccine supplies are stable and vaccine risk/benefit data is better established.

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

Is this in the United States?  Because I like this policy.

Canada

[Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?]

45 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I so wanted to check and just haven't gotten it done. What are states doing right now with the flu vaccine? I sorta remember there was this same hubub with that years ago, with the health care workers wanting the choose and the employers requiring. I think our state recently backpedaled on it. I think there's just the dualing values that we have to work out.

 

Here, policy varies by employer.  A common hospital policy is:

• Those who have formal medical exemptions are accommodated like any other disability. If there is a flu outbreak, they are reassigned to a non-patient-facing role.
• Those who decline the vaccine by choice are treated differently.  If there is an outbreak, they are offered anti-viral prophylactic meds.  If they decline these, then they are placed on unpaid leave of absence until the outbreak is over.

ETA - to clarify I'm talking about hospitals.  I think that other local long term care facility  and other congregate living facility policies are similar.

Again ETA: I'm in Canada

[What mask are you wearing now?]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I am using a disposable mask under a Under Armour cloth mask. I can still smell people smoking though even with the masks on. My nose is flat and my ears are “pointy” so it is easier to keep a disposable mask on by wearing a cloth mask or neck gaiter over it. 

I can still smell through my fit-tested N95 at work.  I wouldn't rely on ability to smell as an indication of mask quality.  Many (most?) aromatic molecules are smaller than 0.1 micron and won't be filtered out by even the best fitting medial mask or n95 mask. (by aromatic, I mean in the colloquial sense, meaning smelly, not formal organic chemistry classification)

[What mask are you wearing now?]

Since there has been mention of N95's on this thread, it's probably a good spot to post some N95 information to help with purchasing and avoiding fakes.

When people talk about N95 masks, they usually mean NIOSH N95 FFR ("filtering facepiece respirator").

It's very important to note that NIOSH N95 FFR is a device standard, as in for the whole device - including device structure, head harness, and fit.  It does not refer just to the filtering capacity of the fabric.  People sometimes use "n95" as shorthand for filtering capacity of a mask's fabric; do not conflate that with the NIOSH N95 standard.  They are not the same.

There are 2 subclasses of NIOSH N95 FFR: standard and surgical.  Surgical NIOSH N95 FFR adds fluid resistance.

Useful links:

Canadian government page all about NIOSH N95 FFR

Canadian summmary of NIOSH N95 FFR standards *** and standards for most other medical PPE.  Note that the filtration capacity of the fabric of surgical masks is just as good as, or may even be superior to the filtration capacity of N95 respirators. But they do not meet the standard for structure, head harness and fit. This site is very comprehensive!

CDC site with a list of NIOSH N95 FFR manufacturers, and tips on how to read labeling to ensure that what you are buying is a real NIOSH N95 FFR

Direct link to manufacturer list

And one last point: to know that your N95 is effective, you really need a formal fit test.  Different models are fit-tested to each individual. 

For most people, a very well fitting cloth mask over a  disposable surgical mask is likely going to be just as good (and maybe even better than)  an N95 that doesn't fit.  N95's that fit properly are mighty uncomfortable.  It's hard to keep them on your face for any length of time without touching/adjusting them.

***ETA that KN95 standards are on this page too.