Flu 'Becoming Resistant To Drugs'

[CVX]

The flu virus is becoming resistant to key drugs which are used to treat it, a study suggests. Doctors in Japan carried out tests on 50 children who were admitted to hospital with flu in 2002 and 2003.



They found that nine children became resistant to the new generation of drugs used to fight the virus.



The findings, published in The Lancet, have sparked concern because these drugs would be needed if there were a flu pandemic.



The medicines belong to a class of drug called neuraminidase inhibitors.



They include Relenza, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, and Tamiflu, which is made by Roche.



Effective weapons



They are currently the most effective weapons against flu. They stop the virus from escaping from one cell and infecting a healthy cell.



Scientists have already known that some strains of flu are resistant to these drugs.



However, this latest study suggests resistance could be much more common than previously thought. Dr Maki Kiso and colleagues from the University of Tokyo said the findings could have serious implications if there is a major outbreak of flu.



"Our results suggest that a higher prevalence of resistant viruses should be expectant during pandemic control efforts using neuraminidase inhibitors," they said.



Some experts believe that a flu pandemic is overdue. There were three pandemics in the last century. The biggest one in 1918 is thought to have killed 40m people.



Dr Anne Moscona from New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine has called for urgent research into the issue.



"We need more information on the emergence of resistance," she said.



"We urgently need to know whether resistant variants, such as those identified in Kiso's study, are transmissible."



John Oxford, professor of virology at Queen Mary's School of Medicine, said the findings were a wake up call.



"This study suggests that resistance is higher than we previously thought," he told BBC News Online.



But he said research into these resistant strains did not find any evidence to suggest that they can infect others.



"They are crippled in some way. While they can mutate, they cannot spread."



But he added: "It is a wake up call. We must continue to monitor these viruses and learn more about them."



© BBC MMIV http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3601608.stm

[Tigerlily]

My boss, at 60 and with a medical history which requires him to take all sorts of drugs, had the flu jab and his body reacted by covering him with psoriasis, not a very common reaction but recorded.

This was a month ago and his skin is just getting back to normal. he says he's not going to have the flu jab in future. He'd rather have the flu.

[CARLA]

The "Flu" INFLUENZA has killed millions of people since the early 1900's that is why the shot is so important especially for the very young and the elderly, and those with compromised respitory systems. There are 3 classes of FLU each one more deadly then the other. That is why people don't think they will survive the FLU, because many won't unless they have the shot.

I work around elderly people it is mandatory that I have a flu shot every year. Now that I soon to be 60 I have it, and I will be adding a pneumonia shot next year.

[QUOTE]The last flu pandemic broke out in 1918 following World War I, killing more than 40 million people. There were subsequent pandemics in 1957 and 1968 which had lower death rates but caused great disruption, he said.


[QUOTE]One, I think flu should be sweated out and TLC goes a long way. why is it that people don't think that they are going to survive flu?

It's a crap viris and needs care but that's all.[/QUOTE]

[guppy]

our hosptial is overrun with a viral infection going around right now in this area...it is causing alot of pneumonia and resp. problems..... i have had it for almost two months now....snot and cough, snot and cough.....

[tedhutchinson]

The Antibiotic Vitamin

Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin d3

The Vitamin D council has links to the cheapest BEST sources of vitamin d 3 Cholecalciferol.

The Case against Ergocaciferol to make sure you buy the right vitamin d

for the research that shows how much vitamin d you need to take every day during the winter to make sure your personal antibiotic status is as high as possible

Vitamin d is the major player as a natural antibiotic and natural booster of your immune system and controller of your autoimmune response but you must not forget the importance of Vitamins A & C & E Selenium Zinc Manganese Omega 3 Zinc Co enzeyme q10/ginkgo/See Direct ms.org (Vit C is best taken in small time release forumulations, it isn't well absorbed in large amounts and has a half life measured in minutes. so little and over a protracted period is better than a large amount down the loo)

and the probiotics found in yoghurt and kefir (both of which you can make your own and only have to buy an initial live starter yog or scrounge a kefir starter from someone else) Cheap cheerful effective no need to pay through the nose for bought stuff make your own.

The best provider of Cholecalciferol listed at The Vitamin D council website supplies 50,000iu vit d3 cholecalciferol and while this amount is high enough to cause problems if taken day after day for months on end, if anyone needed to have some ready in case they had to go into hospital then taking a couple on ONE OCCASION before the hospital admission would be worth doing. It does take a day or two to get into your blood stream but it would be the safest way of giving your immune status a quick boost before you entered a dangerous zone. Having the EXTREMELY VERY HIGH stength capsules at hand (providing they were locked away from any stupid children)may be useful if there ever is an avian flu epidemic. See links above. It's cheap enough 100 x 50,000iu (one every fortnight between October to April northern hemisphere0 costs only $39 or £20uk so the TEN ONLY needed will provide sufficient vitamin d3 cholecalciferol to keep you up to strength for a WHOLE WINTER and reduce your cancer risk of 17 different vitamin d low status enabled cancers by on average 29% and halve your MS RISK by up to 50% for just £2 or $4 is there a better bargain anywhere ever wordwide?

And before the illeducated morons who don't keep up with the latest research bring out the outdated unscientific myth based official carp that doesn't have any basis in reality or science based understanding of the real situation READ THIS FIRST Critique of the Considerations for Establishing Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for Vitamin D BE WARNED I DO NOT TREAT FOOLS KINDLY

[CARLA]

Be very careful with Vitamin D it is easy to overdose and potentially dangerous in high doses in the body.

[tedhutchinson]

CARLA;508527 wrote: Be very careful with Vitamin D it is easy to overdose and potentially dangerous in high doses in the body. There was a reason for my statement BE WARNED I DO NOT TREAT FOOLS KINDLY

In my opinion only a fool would put a warning on a tap saying "Be very careful with water, it is easy to overdose and potentially dangerous in high doses in the body"

Yes we know that lots of people drown each year because of water and we know that pyschotic individuals can drink water obsessively and die of water intoxication but COMMON SENSE and the ability to do mental arithemetic enables us to work out the risk of danger from drinking water and compare that with the amount needed for healthy living.

8 glasses a day of water is generally regarded as a safe sensible amount

40 glasses a day of water would lead to problems and could kill you.

the ratio of safety over danger is 5

You would need to take five times the safe amount of water to harm yourself.

Although the OFFICIAL RDA for Vitamin d is 400iu the IDEAL OPTIMUM AMOUNT that allows you to retain the safe vitamin d status your body naturally obtains from regular limited non burning exposure to sunshine is 4000iu a day.

SO

the latest research proves 4000iu is the ideal amount daily for optimal health

The amount that MAY lead to health problems if sustained on a daily basis for a period of MANY MONTHS is 40,000iu/daily

The therapeutic index of safety over danger is TEN 10

So which is the most dangerous?

Water with a therapeutic index of 5 or Vitamin d with a therapeutic index of 10?

The kind of mentality that puts warnings on packs of cashews reading "MAY CONTAIN NUTS" or on Cheese "MAY CONTAIN MILK" is like the previous poster. Perhaps they would find their time making a fool of themselves by putting up notices round the desert saying "Danger of Drowning".

The calculator here shows if you can get Vitamin D from sunshine on any particular day of the year and given the current cloud/pollution constraints. If sunshine is available at midday, when the ratio of UVBUVA is optimal for vit d synsthis, then clearly there is NO need to use supplements and you can spend 20 mins in the sunshine and make it for free. Doing this 3 times a week will supply roughly 30,000iu Cholecalciferol sufficient for 7 days use at 4000iu/d

For those who are unable to go outside during the day taking this amount of vitamin d is TWICE as safe as drinking the Optimum amount of water. It is ONE TENTH of the amount needed (over a long period of time) may hurt you.

Restoring physiological serum levels of 25(OH)D will help many more patients than it will hurt.

In fact, living in America today while worrying about vitamin D toxicity is like dying of thirst in the desert while worrying about drowning.

So if CARLA wants to start putting "danger of drowning" notices round the nearest desert she would be far better employed doing that than displaying her lack of understanding and gullibility here.

[tedhutchinson]

CARLA;505958 wrote: The "Flu" INFLUENZA has killed millions of people since the early 1900's that is why the shot is so important especially for the very young and the elderly, and those with compromised respitory systems. There are 3 classes of FLU each one more deadly then the other. That is why people don't think they will survive the FLU, because many won't unless they have the shot.

I work around elderly people it is mandatory that I have a flu shot every year. Now that I soon to be 60 I have it, and I will be adding a pneumonia shot next year.Flu Vaccines 'Less Effective Than Thought

In elderly individuals living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza, influenza-like illness, or pneumonia.

"The effect of current vaccination programs on morbidity is insignificant, and that on mortality marginal."

[alobar51]

Vitamin d is the major player as a natural antibiotic and natural booster of your immune system and controller of your autoimmune response



No, it isn't.

[tedhutchinson]

alobar51;516163 wrote: Vitamin d is the major player as a natural antibiotic and natural booster of your immune system and controller of your autoimmune response



No, it isn't.Well I wonder why a Google Scholar search for "Vitamin d" "immune" results 17600 journal articles. Including this selection.

Fighting infections with vitamin D

Vitamin D and its role in immunology

Cutaneous Defense Mechanisms by Antimicrobial Peptides

The antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin protects the urinary tract against invasive bacterial infection

Vitamin D Compounds: Activity Against Microbes and Cancer

Selective Killing of Vaccinia Virus by LL-37: Implications for Eczema Vaccinatum

Expression and potential function of cathelicidin antimicrobial peptides in dermatophytosis and tinea versicolor

Cutting Edge: 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Is a Direct Inducer of Antimicrobial Peptide Gene Expression1

Vitamin D Induces the Antimicrobial Protein hCAP18 in Human Skin

[laneybug]

Of course it's becoming resistant. This isn't new. Viruses mutate.

[Chookie]

Another factor in this is over-prescription of proprietary drugs.

There are usually natural alternatives.

[tedhutchinson]

The sunshine superstar: study reveals Vitamin D as 'wonder vitamin' reports on new research showing that those with the highest levels of Vitamin d status have 60% FEWER colds and flu. not surprising as it also produces better better lung function and greater control of each stage of the immune response.

But there is little point in using trivial amounts as used in OFFICIAL RDA amounts. While the "0fficial" position is that 2000iu is the Toxic Upper Limit those who have read Heaney will know the body uses on average 4000iu/daily and that this is less than half the proposes new TUL and is consequently absolutely safe. particularly as it is only necessary to take this amount on days you are unable to lay naked in the sunshine for 20 minutes or so.