The New Jersey nurse quarantined for several days last year because she worked with Ebola patients is suing Gov. Chris Christie and health department officials, claiming the mandatory quarantine was unconstitutional.
Kaci Hickox spent a month in Sierra Leone working at the Doctors Without Borders’ Ebola Treatment Unit in 2014, working with patients infected with Ebola as the virus spread through West Africa.
When she landed at Newark Liberty International Airport, Christie recently issued a policy that kept the 34-year-old nurse detained there for hours, then quarantined over the weekend in an unheated tent at University Hospital.
Yet the nurse had exhibited no signs of being infected with the Ebola virus, and according to the suit, was kept under quarantine despite testing negative for the virus.
“His decision (Christie) was driven by fear and politics, not science and fact,” Udi Ofer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Jersey told BuzzFeed News. “Kaci Hickox was the first person to fall prey to his policy.”
The ACLU has joined as co-counsel in the suit, which was filed Thursday in federal court.
As part of the suit, Hickox is asking for $250,000, as well as a repeal of New Jersey’s Ebola virus quarantine which is still in effect.
“Ebola is a public health issue and it should be driven by science and fact,” Ofer said.
Instead, Ofer said, the policy was adopted out of fear and politics.
The suit also states that Hickox, who now lives in Oregon, had never shown signs of a fever or other symptoms of being infected, despite comments made by Christie and other state officials that she was feverish at the airport.
While she was in quarantine at the hospital, the suit states, she continued to show a normal temperature when officials used an oral thermometer, while a temporal scanning thermometer being used there showed higher readings.
A spokesman for Christie told BuzzFeed News the governor’s office would not comment on the lawsuit because its an ongoing legal matter.
But Christie, who is now a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, had an indication since last year that Hickox’s quarantine could eventually lead him to court.
During a campaign stop in Rhode Island in Oct. 2014, Christie told a reporter who asked about a possible suit: “Well, whatever. Get in line. I’ve been sued lots of times before. Get in line. I’m happy to take it on.”
In public comments at the time, Christie defended his decision stating that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had issued “confusing” protocols during the Ebola virus outbreak.
In my opinion, the enforced quarantine of an asymptomatic patient was ridiculous and it was 100% political posturing.
That being said, I don't think her suit should succeed because I think the state should have wide latitude to respond to public health concerns. That they might show poor leadership and judgement in enacting one is,in my opinion, a political matter best decided by the voters.
It's an interesting case. The government does have an existing legal right to restrict individual liberties when it comes to public health, but it also has a responsibility to do so in the least restrictive way and to base these restrictions on sound medical science.
Given the infections that happened recently, it seems prudent to me to test her as standard safety precaution, but I would think the best time to do that test is in Africa... You know. Before she boarded a plane to another continent? Most certainly should not have continued to hold her after she tested negative. That's bonkers.
I think your all nuts, I am sorry, but if you were possibly exposed to one of the most dangerous virus's in the world and you have to be inconvenienced for a couple of days.....ohh fething well.
Agreed, its just that kind of logic that make horror/disaster movies longer than 5 minutes.
Nuke it from orbit- roll credits.
Especially since there was a case recently of someone who recovered during the outbreak that was showing symptoms again just recently. "science" and "facts" change all the time.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Agreed, its just that kind of logic that make horror/disaster movies longer than 5 minutes.
Nuke it from orbit- roll credits.
Especially since there was a case recently of someone who recovered during the outbreak that was showing symptoms again just recently. "science" and "facts" change all the time.
lmao thats an exalt right there.
I don't see anything wrong with a national wide policy of a 2-3 day quarantine for anyone coming back from a country with an active ebola outbreak.
I work with a woman who went out to help with the ebola epidemic. She was not put into lockdown on returning to the UK as far as I can remember from speaking to her, though I think there were a few questions at the airport.
Ebola is so dangerous because of the poor access to healthcare and blatant disregard for measures designed to stop its spread by the local population... such as an infected household aelling the food they were provided with during lockdown to others in the village... infecting more households...
Ebola getting loose in the UK or US would not be good, but would not be devestating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Agreed, its just that kind of logic that make horror/disaster movies longer than 5 minutes.
Nuke it from orbit- roll credits.
Especially since there was a case recently of someone who recovered during the outbreak that was showing symptoms again just recently. "science" and "facts" change all the time.
If you are talking about the nurse from the UK, that was due to a completely different infectious disease that took advantage of lowered immune system.
I admit I was fairly concerned much more at first than I am now. I just stood back a minute, though and realized that Africa would be a depopulated Continent if Ebola were as deadly as we feared.
Got a citation for that, Silver? All I see is that they're saying it's not a new infection.
Ebola is a horrible disease, but I agree it's mainly so dangerous due to Africa's conditions of poverty, superstition, and ignorance compounded by sub-par medical practices.
My point is, assuming we know what the disease is capable of is our first mistake. better safe than sorry, better this idiot is inconvenienced a bit than get someone infected.
Keep in mind that US soldiers/Marines who were sent to help with the relief were quarantined for 21 days after coming home. And this woman is complaining about 2 days in a tent? seriously? Feth her.
Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
the Signless wrote: Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
Ghazkuul wrote: I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
That's not a great way to measure it. I think it's some of both.
I would not consider AIDS to be dangerous at all, truthfully. I'd prefer to not have it, ideally, but it's a fairly difficult disease to actually contract.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
Unlike AIDS, ebola has a short incubation period and very obvious active period making it much easier to spot. Also, with good foor, water and rest, most people recover on their own.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
I can see that you aren't an Epidemiologist. Ease of transmission is one of the major factors that make diseases dangerous, why do you think people get so excited about avian influenzas?
LordofHats wrote: Most certainly should not have continued to hold her after she tested negative. That's bonkers.
Its not. No test is 100% reliable, although the diagnostics used in the recent outbreak are close. There was a case of Ebola transmission to a healthcare worker from a falsely negative infant and its highly likely that more such incidents occurred.
Ebola has a short incubation period though and has obvious early symptoms (most obviously a raised temperature), so this quarantine does sound more like political posturing than anything else.
Ebola is, realistically, a relatively difficult disease to contract and its spread very easy to control once identified.
However, given its potential lethality, I don't think a short quarantine/restriction period is unreasonable if there is a reasonable belief that someone may have been exposed.
That said, I don't have a problem with challenges to governmental authority on such issues to help keep them honest and careful about when they use such powers.
the Signless wrote: Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
Easy transmission of a usually non-lethal virus (think influenza) can cause many more deaths than a hardly-transmissible, highly lethal one.
Ghazkuul wrote: I think your all nuts, I am sorry, but if you were possibly exposed to one of the most dangerous virus's in the world and you have to be inconvenienced for a couple of days.....ohh fething well.
I'd have to agree. The state of New Jersey should turn around and bill here for all costs associated. Then it should send Vinnie and Mickie Walnuts to motivate her in prompt payment.
Relapse wrote:I admit I was fairly concerned much more at first than I am now. I just stood back a minute, though and realized that Africa would be a depopulated Continent if Ebola were as deadly as we feared.
Who is this "we" you're talking about? Irrational, misinformed people? But thank you for admitting that your overblown 'fear' of ebolavirus was shenanigans.
Ouze wrote:Imagine if this had broken out in a hub for human trafficking like Dallas.
Ghazkuul wrote: I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
Well I guess it's a good thing we leave this kind of stuff up to scientist and doctors who know what they are talking about. But then again, what the feth do they know? You're a guy on the internet, you have an opinion!
Relapse wrote:I admit I was fairly concerned much more at first than I am now. I just stood back a minute, though and realized that Africa would be a depopulated Continent if Ebola were as deadly as we feared.
Who is this "we" you're talking about? Irrational, misinformed people? But thank you for admitting that your overblown 'fear' of ebolavirus was shenanigans.
Ouze wrote:Imagine if this had broken out in a hub for human trafficking like Dallas.
Ghazkuul wrote: I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
Well I guess it's a good thing we leave this kind of stuff up to scientist and doctors who know what they are talking about. But then again, what the feth do they know? You're a guy on the internet, you have an opinion!
scooty can you go a single fething day without insulting every single person you disagree with on the internet?
And as for the plethora of others who decided to comment on my comment I apologize that I didn't specify that I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call ebola "not that dangerous"
Yes im well aware of the incubation period and how short term the disease is. I watched all the same news stories as the rest of you. Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
The fact that any of you can honestly say that having a woman quarantined over the weekend because she was exposed to ebola a short time ago is ridiculous. From your posts in this and the USA Political topic I find it rather amusing that most who think it was wrong for a republican governor to quarantine the woman are also staunch supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Maybe keep your own political posturing out of common sense?
Ghazkuul wrote: scooty can you go a single fething day without insulting every single person you disagree with on the internet?
Is pointing out that you're not a medical expert an insult? Thin skin much?
And as for the plethora of others who decided to comment on my comment I apologize that I didn't specify that I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call ebola "not that dangerous"
Yes im well aware of the incubation period and how short term the disease is. I watched all the same news stories as the rest of you. Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
No, myself and others spent weeks explaining to people just like you that you don't know what you're talking about. Go dig up the last ebola thread and give it a read. Also, don't base your opinion of the disease because you watched a bunch of terrible news stories about the 'epidemic.' That's part of your problem. Instead, go read some scientific papers on it instead of listening to a bunch of blowhard talking heads.
The fact that any of you can honestly say that having a woman quarantined over the weekend because she was exposed to ebola a short time ago is ridiculous. From your posts in this and the USA Political topic I find it rather amusing that most who think it was wrong for a republican governor to quarantine the woman are also staunch supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
That's odd, because I've never supported Clintion or Sanders. Feel free to go find where that is not true, I'll wait.
The political affiliation of the Chris Christie has nothing to do with how stupid he responded to the nurse without ebola. Stupidity regarding the disease was and is not limited to certain political parties.
Maybe keep your own political posturing out of common sense?
Political posturing? I'm not sure you know what that means by the way you're using it. Also, common sense has nothing to with how America handled ebola, as evidence by your contribution to this thread.
Frazzled wrote: Evidently some of the survivors are dropping dead a few months after. There is some concern about it. I imagine if you're dead you're less concerned.
the Signless wrote: Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
So far the survival rate for Ebola on a western country is what? 80-90%?
There is a big old thread explaining why the quarantine is stupid. Leave the public health issues to public health officials, not politicians.
Ghazkuul wrote: scooty can you go a single fething day without insulting every single person you disagree with on the internet?
He says, before going on to dismiss people's concerns in this thread as political posturing.
And as for the plethora of others who decided to comment on my comment I apologize that I didn't specify that I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call ebola "not that dangerous"
Apology accepted.
Yes im well aware of the incubation period and how short term the disease is. I watched all the same news stories as the rest of you. Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
If it takes you 5 to google the word Epidemiologist then you either need to get a better internet connection, or learn to type the words "person who studies diseases" It's not that hard. And what's so unfeasible about people knowing the word in the first place? Just because it's a big word doesn't mean that people don't know it.
The fact that any of you can honestly say that having a woman quarantined over the weekend because she was exposed to ebola a short time ago is ridiculous. From your posts in this and the USA Political topic I find it rather amusing that most who think it was wrong for a republican governor to quarantine the woman are also staunch supporters of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Because of course, the only people who would protest to being kept in quarantine after testing negative for Ebola would be them Durn Libruls! And she was "exposed" in so much as she was near people who were ill with it whilst using safety measures designed to prevent its spread. She wasn't exactly licking the blood off of their faces.
Maybe keep your own political posturing out of common sense?
Of course! Only conservatives are able to use common sense; I tried to use common sense once, but all I ended up doing was chanting "FeelTheBern" over and over again for half an hour; I'm not quite sure what happened, but this explains it!
On topic (or more on topic), I'm not sure about whether that much money is justified, but using this case as a means of forcing the state to actually adopt sensible practices can only be a good thing in my view.
the Signless wrote: Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
So far the survival rate for Ebola on a western country is what? 80-90%?
There is a big old thread explaining why the quarantine is stupid. Leave the public health issues to public health officials, not politicians.
was there a political gain to have the military coming back from Africa quarantined for 3 weeks? i missed where that had any kind of political motivation.
Ghazkuul wrote: Keep in mind that US soldiers/Marines who were sent to help with the relief were quarantined for 21 days after coming home. And this woman is complaining about 2 days in a tent? seriously? Feth her.
Service members had to sit on base in tents after returning home?
Ghazkuul wrote: and scooty what do you have to say about these random occurrences of Ebola that happened well after the fact?
It says that we need to keep studying the disease. It doesn't invalidate anything about how the disease is spread.
Even non-epidemiologists should understand that.
EDIT: I misunderstood what you are getting at here... are you talking about some people that have beaten ebola and then getting sick some time later or are you talking about people randomly getting ebola in areas that exposed to ebola? If it's the latter, please explain.
Although doctors have known for some time that the Ebola virus can survive in semen long after a patient is considered cured, there has never been a clear, documented case of this happening, according to the CDC report.
This happened after scientists have long thought that it could. That's really important, but it still doesn't change anything about the topic at hand.
the Signless wrote: Ebola is not one of the most dangerous viruses in the world. It spreads through the bodily fluids of people that are in advanced stages of the disease, making it relatively easy to avoid if proper measures are taken. It also has fairly obvious symptoms, making it hard to be Typhoid Mary and infect others without your knowledge.
She had displayed no symptoms while she was in Africa and was monitored before she went back to the United States. She repeatedly tested negative for Ebola after she was quarantined. The conditions of her quarantine were also pretty bad, being stuck in an unheated tent for days with a portable toilet and no shower.
Aids is not a dangerous disease because it is transmitted by bodily fluids blah blah blah....seriously dude? I would rate how dangerous a virus/disease is by the survival rate not by how easy it is to transmit.
So far the survival rate for Ebola on a western country is what? 80-90%?
There is a big old thread explaining why the quarantine is stupid. Leave the public health issues to public health officials, not politicians.
was there a political gain to have the military coming back from Africa quarantined for 3 weeks? i missed where that had any kind of political motivation.
The military is a lot easier to quarantine because they honestly don't exactly have a lot of the same rights that civilians do.
The quarantine of this particular nurse was political because he wanted to seem Tough on Ebola.
The best quarantine response was implemented, to no ones surprise, by the uniformed services members of the Public Health Services returning from Africa: self monitor at home for symptoms for 21 days.
Although doctors have known for some time that the Ebola virus can survive in semen long after a patient is considered cured, there has never been a clear, documented case of this happening, according to the CDC report.
This happened after scientists have long thought that it could. That's really important, but it still doesn't change anything about the topic at hand.
theirs two articles for evidence
There's two articles for evidence.
The other thing to keep in mind with semen transmission is that historically it has been very hard to get good compliance with condom use in Africa. It's no scientific study, but just looking at the historical cases that show that once an Ebola outbreak has stopped it doesn't quickly return despite the fact that 50% of survivors have Ebola-sperm makes it seem that this particular transmission risk of fairly low.
Now we just need to stop people from eating each other's eyeballs.
Although doctors have known for some time that the Ebola virus can survive in semen long after a patient is considered cured, there has never been a clear, documented case of this happening, according to the CDC report.
This happened after scientists have long thought that it could. That's really important, but it still doesn't change anything about the topic at hand.
theirs two articles for evidence
There's two articles for evidence.
Seriously? My computer auto correct there to their and your going to point it out?
The fact remains that the Ebola virus can live inside the human body for a significantly longer period of time then most believe. So with that in mind a 2 day quarantine doesn't seem overly strict.
Sorry, I can't help myself:
There're two articles for evidence.
'There're' is fine for speech, but I'm not a fan of it in the written form; it just looks too awkward. 'There's' isn't that great either (though better than 'theirs' in his case, obviously) because using it to list multiple things is bad grammar, but in this case it's the one I would go to.
It's the lesser of two grammatical evils.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Leave the science to scientists, and specifically leave public health issues to public health officials.
Be warned that it is filled with panic and terror. We laughed and we cried as we lived through those dangerous and uncertain times together.
Of course some mysteries are still unsolved:
- Did Peter's mother's cousin's brother's former roommate survive?
- Did Dallas only survive because people are as bad at catching Ebola as they are at catching a football?
- Was Obama's plan to infect the United States with Ebola by flying in victims and sending service members to Africa to become infected doomed from the start?
We might never know, but we will continue with our coverage of "non medical people telling medical people how they are wrong" right now!
Be warned that it is filled with panic and terror. We laughed and we cried as we lived through those dangerous and uncertain times together.
Of course some mysteries are still unsolved:
- Did Peter's mother's cousin's brother's former roommate survive?
- Did Dallas only survive because people are as bad at catching Ebola as they are at catching a football?
- Was Obama's plan to infect the United States with Ebola by flying in victims and sending service members to Africa to become infected doomed from the start?
We might never know, but we will continue with our coverage of "non medical people telling medical people how they are wrong" right now!
Exalted.
+ The "no space between the last word and exclamation/question mark" rule depends on the language. I guess it's the same one for British English and American English, but in French we do leave a space.
I have been informed by forum leadership that everyone that has participated in this thread is now on a 3 day quarantine due to the risk of contracting e-Bola. It's a dangerous condition where the stuff you read on the internet makes you nauseous and physically ill. This post should serve as your notice to employees since it was written by a licensed and board certified medical professional, so please print it out and hand it to your boss/parent/teacher/coach/parole officer. Everyone is free to continue their regular activities on Monday as long as you are able to stay away from any new e-Bola threads.
reds8n wrote: I think we can excuse a pretty minor grammatical or spelling error yes ?
Let's dial it down a wee bit in general please.
thanks.
You don't put a space between a question mark and the last word of a sentence, reds8n! Also, you need a comma after the word "error!"
That's not how we roll!
On topic: I don't think 2 days is the end of the world, but I hope she enjoys her early retirement from the money she is sure to get.
I would not hold your breath on that. In matters of the "Public Health" government agencies have been given WIDE leeway by the courts.
She won't see a dime.
Ghazkuul wrote: Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
As a Microbiologist I don't need to google it and what you posted was crazytalk.
Ghazkuul wrote: Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
As a Microbiologist I don't need to google it and what you posted was crazytalk.
Good for you, it was also a bunch of board certified retards....I mean doctors, including epidemiologists, who told the military it is a great idea to force feed troops anti malaria pills while they are deployed to afghanistan, even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Not a single Marine in my unit contracted Malaria though....of course we were stationed in a fething desert with no water in sight...in any direction.....ever....
Ghazkuul wrote: Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
As a Microbiologist I don't need to google it and what you posted was crazytalk.
Good for you, it was also a bunch of board certified retards....I mean doctors, including epidemiologists, who told the military it is a great idea to force feed troops anti malaria pills while they are deployed to afghanistan, even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Not a single Marine in my unit contracted Malaria though....of course we were stationed in a fething desert with no water in sight...in any direction.....ever....
Ghazkuul wrote: Also thank you to whoever pointed out that I am not a epidemiologist, im sure you spent 5 minutes googling the right way to insult me so thanks for that.
As a Microbiologist I don't need to google it and what you posted was crazytalk.
Good for you, it was also a bunch of board certified retards....I mean doctors, including epidemiologists, who told the military it is a great idea to force feed troops anti malaria pills while they are deployed to afghanistan, even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Not a single Marine in my unit contracted Malaria though....of course we were stationed in a fething desert with no water in sight...in any direction.....ever....
i was in that yellow portion of Nimruz and the pink portion of Helmand. Specifically Delaram and Sangin
so mostly 0% Malaria cases, and if I happened to go south a bit I might have been in the .1 per 1,000 area :p nowhere near enough malaria to warrant the amount of drugs they forced on us.
i was in that yellow portion of Nimruz and the pink portion of Helmand. Specifically Delaram and Sangin
So you were in an area with Malaria? Glad we got that out of the way then.
so mostly 0% Malaria cases,
Well, mostly 0% still means you are in a country that is not malaria free.
and if I happened to go south a bit I might have been in the .1 per 1,000 area :p nowhere near enough malaria to warrant the amount of drugs they forced on us.
Except prevention is always cheaper and more effective than treatment.
i was in that yellow portion of Nimruz and the pink portion of Helmand. Specifically Delaram and Sangin
So you were in an area with Malaria? Glad we got that out of the way then.
so mostly 0% Malaria cases,
Well, mostly 0% still means you are in a country that is not malaria free.
and if I happened to go south a bit I might have been in the .1 per 1,000 area :p nowhere near enough malaria to warrant the amount of drugs they forced on us.
Except prevention is always cheaper and more effective than treatment.
I live in Florida atm, we have on average about 150 malaria cases a year, so does that mean Floridians should all be put on a possibly harmful Malaria medicine?
I live in Florida atm, we have on average about 150 malaria cases a year, so does that mean Floridians should all be put on a possibly harmful Malaria medicine?
If we go by your numbers:
Rate of Malaria in Florida: 0.0000075% Rate in Malaria in Afghanistan: 0.1%
Which would mean that you are 13,000 times more likely to catch Malaria in Afghanistan than you are in Florida.
So based on your numbers I could see where trained professionals might decide that one area is more appropriate for prophylaxis than another.
Of course if we want to use data that is actually factual we can look at the data from Florida:
P. falciparum and P. vivax were previously present in Florida, but was eradicated from the state in the late 1940s. Local transmission has occurred only rarely in recent years, likely due to mosquito control measures, improved housing with screens, use of repellents, and drainage practices. A number of malaria cases are reported in immigrant and travelers to areas where malaria risk is high. There are 14 Anopheles mosquito species in Florida, all of which are potentially capable of transmitting malaria. An. quadrimaculatus and An. crucians have been major malaria vectors in the past. Since introduction from endemic areas occurs regularly and competent vectors exist in the state, local transmission is possible.
See, if you have control of the infrastructure and other public health resources you can do all these things that reduce the risk of Malaria. If you don't have control of these things you end up with having to take pills to prevent transmission. Sometimes you have to do both. Public Health officials are always tasked with coming up with the least harmful way of preventing transmission, which includes determining if the risk of taking medication is higher than the risk of not taking medication.
Malaria Occurrence in Florida
The largest outbreak in recent Florida history occurred in Palm Beach County in 2003 where there were eight cases.
Can't believe they don't know about the 150 cases that happened each year since those 8...
In 2012, 65 cases of imported malaria were reported in Florida.
That only leaves 85 cases for that year left unaccounted for...
Forty-five cases (69%) were diagnosed with P. falciparum, 16 (25%) with P. vivax, two (3%) with P. ovale, two with P. malariae (3 %). All 65 cases were associated with travel or immigration.
People going to countries where malaria happens get malaria? Who would have thought...
Reasons given for traveling to a malaria endemic county included: 43% visiting friends and relatives (VFR), 29% for business (including missionary and military), 9% of cases were recent immigrants, 8% tourism, 5% students or teachers, and 6% unknown reason.
So looking at the real epidemiological data instead of your fictional numbers for Florida, even though your inflated fictional numbers still make a very good case for not pumping the population full of pills, it seems that secondary prevention measures aimed at controlling the population of mosquitoes has been able to keep the number of transmissions at a level where 8 people out of a population of 20 million is the largest outbreak and that the vast majority of malaria cases in Florida were contracted by people who went to countries where there is still endemic malaria.
You know, like Afghanistan.
But hey, nice try. Even though by arguing why you shouldn't take pills in Afghanistan because Florida you ended up making a pretty good case of exactly why you should take pills in Afghanistan before returning to Florida.
The states with the greatest change in reported malaria cases in 2012 were Florida, which decreased by 48% from 2011 (120 in 2011 vs. 62 in 2012),
CDC
i was looking at a significantly older cdc model then this one.
But your numbers are completely off. IN Nimruz province where I was mostly at, there was ZERO cases. When I was in Helmand there was ZERO Cases, however if I ever went on patrol into the south, where the brits were, I had a 0-.1 chance in 1000 of contracting Malaria. So the chances are EXCEPTIONALLY low. Malaria doesn't really exist in deserts so kind of hard to justify that treatment.
Ghazkuul wrote: even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Presumably Doxycycline? That has pretty mild side effects, especially at the low dosege that is used for antimalarial prophylaxis, it may even have cleared up a few lingering Chlamydia infections. Count yourself lucky that it wasn't Proguanil/Paludrine, that stuff is horrible.
Besides there is no way that the side effects were worse than contracting malaria.
Ghazkuul wrote: even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Presumably Doxycycline? That has pretty mild side effects, especially at the low dosege that is used for antimalarial prophylaxis, it may even have cleared up a few lingering Chlamydia infections. Count yourself lucky that it wasn't Proguanil/Paludrine, that stuff is horrible.
Besides there is no way that the side effects were worse than contracting malaria.
You are 100% on both accounts.
The side effects most of us suffered were sleeping problems, stomach problems and the best, dizziness. Nothing says combat effective like dizziness
The point I was making though was that out of our unit the chances of even contracting malaria without the drugs was Zero to .01% or less and it would have been better to not be on the drugs. I am not saying that the casualties we suffered were due to the drugs at all, im just saying that the trade off isn't really worth the risks associated with the drugs. And btw I don't know for sure if that was the drug they used to use but ours was one of the first deployments that changed malaria drugs, because the other one caused hallucinations which is just bad juju all around.
The states with the greatest change in reported malaria cases in 2012 were Florida, which decreased by 48% from 2011 (120 in 2011 vs. 62 in 2012),
CDC
i was looking at a significantly older cdc model then this one.
But your numbers are completely off. IN Nimruz province where I was mostly at, there was ZERO cases. When I was in Helmand there was ZERO Cases, however if I ever went on patrol into the south, where the brits were, I had a 0-.1 chance in 1000 of contracting Malaria. So the chances are EXCEPTIONALLY low.
And we also need to keep in mind that these numbers are based on current data and they would look much worse in the previous decade.
You can also look at malaria in the Russian military during their exploration of Afghanistan if you are interested.
Malaria doesn't really exist in deserts so kind of hard to justify that treatment.
Malaria can exist at any place as long as you have a population that carries the disease and a vector for spreading the disease.
Population:
In Afghanistan you had a huge degree of population movement when refugees traveled looking for safety. Those huge population shifts always carry an increase in the incidence of disease transmission and they often cause previous maps to become less reliable because it doesn't help to just know where malaria cases have been present in the past, you need to know where the people leaving areas with higher prevalence are going so that you can predict where malaria will happen in the future and focus your prevention efforts there. That, on top of the already existing risk of malaria, creates a huge public health risk.
Vectors:
Malaria is spread my mosquitoes, which I admit are usually somewhat on the rare side in a desert, but they do exist in any area where you end up with standing stagnant water. Villages with pit latrines, areas with poor sanitation resulting in slow flowing sewers, standing water for animals to drink, slow irrigation systems, cisterns, any areas inside a military base where any kind of standing water is out in the open (mechanical areas, ac units, waste water holding areas). Of course existing water and sewer systems in the area will be strained by an increase in demand with the population shift evident in a war, and improvised facilities in refugee communities are the prime breeding ground for mosquitoes.
Those two issues combined is something that the board certified fellows will look at when making the determination if prophylactic treatment is worth the risk.
Of course I could also ignore the whole science aspect of explaining things to you, but I like to think that other people reading this thread might learn a thing or two, and just point out that US soldiers in Afghanistan do in fact get malaria:
According to a report published by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center last month, 124 cases appeared among American troops in 2011. Of those, 91 — nearly three out of four — were diagnosed in Afghanistan. ... The number of cases in Afghanistan is proportionately higher than the number of cases acquired in the tropical regions of Africa and Haiti, where U.S. troops provided assistance following the 2010 earthquake.
If I had to guess I would say that the primary cause of the higher rate is soldiers going "this is stupid, you can't get malaria in a desert" and not taking their pills.
Between 2004 and 2006, while deployed to Liberia as part of an international peacekeeping force, Swedish troops suffered no malaria cases, Fukuda wrote. Soldiers were instructed to use DEET-based repellent and mosquito nets; and soldiers took anti-malaria tablets together at the same time every day.
By contrast, Fukuda wrote, U.S. troops in Liberia took their anti-malarials on the "honor system," had no bed nets and their use of insect repellent was low. Thirty-six percent of the U.S. troops were diagnosed with malaria infections.
Yah, I totally didn't take those pills. Nobody does, not even the people that tell you to take them. Massive stomach problems, sever dizziness, horrible nightmares causing lack of sleep....nope no thank you. Best part was when I was told by the people telling us that we had to take it was that mosquitoes can be found as high up as 2000ft....problem was we were going to be at 6000 to 8000ft the entire deployment. So why did we have to take them?
Some people do not realize that the military can be forced to use things they do not want to use because Congressman have buddies that need a bigger paycheck and the military can be a good fall guy for that. Others don't realize there is a massive corupt pharma industry. Not all medicine is healthy all the time.
Lets not forget the pill it replaced caused psychosis in some guys. Leading to increased spousal abuse, murder and suicide. You know because you have to take them for 3 weeks after you redeploy home incase there is malaria in the US.
In November, the Army dropped the anti-malarial drug mefloquine. Users had complained the pill caused psychiatric symptoms ranging from nightmares, depression and paranoia to auditory hallucinations and mental breakdowns.
Which is better, 250 Marines having those above listed symptoms or possibly losing 1 guy to malaria for a bit?
In November, the Army dropped the anti-malarial drug mefloquine. Users had complained the pill caused psychiatric symptoms ranging from nightmares, depression and paranoia to auditory hallucinations and mental breakdowns.
Which is better, 250 Marines having those above listed symptoms or possibly losing 1 guy to malaria for a bit?
It's almost like the process worked and the health branch of the military uses evidence based practice to continuously evaluate and alter their practice based on the latest evidence and risks.
But hey, keep on posting and you will get something right:
- claims there is no malaria in Afghanistan (false)
- claims there is zero malaria in these particular provinces (false)
- claims there are 150 cases of malaria in Florida (false, and the cases that did happen all came from foreign countries, including military members in foreign countries)
- claims there is no malaria in the desert (false)
- claims that no military members got malaria (false)
This is like a textbook case of why you leave public health to public health experts and epidemiology to epidemiologists.
Did you email the commandant with your concerns about the pills?
I think we have found our new rock for this thread.
BrotherGecko wrote: Yah, I totally didn't take those pills. Nobody does, not even the people that tell you to take them. Massive stomach problems, sever dizziness, horrible nightmares causing lack of sleep....nope no thank you. Best part was when I was told by the people telling us that we had to take it was that mosquitoes can be found as high up as 2000ft....problem was we were going to be at 6000 to 8000ft the entire deployment. So why did we have to take them?
Never having had them, do you become acclimated to the effects over time?
BrotherGecko wrote: Yah, I totally didn't take those pills. Nobody does, not even the people that tell you to take them. Massive stomach problems, sever dizziness, horrible nightmares causing lack of sleep....nope no thank you. Best part was when I was told by the people telling us that we had to take it was that mosquitoes can be found as high up as 2000ft....problem was we were going to be at 6000 to 8000ft the entire deployment. So why did we have to take them?
Never having had them, do you become acclimated to the effects over time?
Not necessarily... no.
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
In November, the Army dropped the anti-malarial drug mefloquine. Users had complained the pill caused psychiatric symptoms ranging from nightmares, depression and paranoia to auditory hallucinations and mental breakdowns.
Which is better, 250 Marines having those above listed symptoms or possibly losing 1 guy to malaria for a bit?
It's almost like the process worked and the health branch of the military uses evidence based practice to continuously evaluate and alter their practice based on the latest evidence and risks.
But hey, keep on posting and you will get something right:
- claims there is no malaria in Afghanistan (false)
- claims there is zero malaria in these particular provinces (false)
- claims there are 150 cases of malaria in Florida (false, and the cases that did happen all came from foreign countries, including military members in foreign countries)
- claims there is no malaria in the desert (false)
- claims that no military members got malaria (false)
This is like a textbook case of why you leave public health to public health experts and epidemiology to epidemiologists.
Did you email the commandant with your concerns about the pills?
I think we have found our new rock for this thread.
Wow I kind of respected you for attempting to follow logic, but that just lost what little respect I have for you, you are nothing but a liar and a troll.
-NEVER claimed there was NO Malaria in Afghanistan
-Claimed there was Zero Malaria cases in his particular area USING A CDC MAP that showed me to be right
-Claimed 150 cases of Malaria based on OLD CDC Records, I said i was wrong already
-there is no malaria in the desert where I was, and the only times deserts have malaria is with stagnant water which is exceedingly rare in a desert (hence its called a desert and not a swamp) and with refugees, and again very few people flee to the desert for salvation.
-claimed nobody in my unit got malaria.
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
Well, duh, that's why I asked.
To be fair, pain meds aren't the only thing. I take a BP medicine that was really rough for the first week or two but got better afterwards. After about a month, I don't notice the effects anymore.
BrotherGecko wrote: Yah, I totally didn't take those pills. Nobody does, not even the people that tell you to take them. Massive stomach problems, sever dizziness, horrible nightmares causing lack of sleep....nope no thank you. Best part was when I was told by the people telling us that we had to take it was that mosquitoes can be found as high up as 2000ft....problem was we were going to be at 6000 to 8000ft the entire deployment. So why did we have to take them?
Never having had them, do you become acclimated to the effects over time?
After two weeks of taking it, no it was always very severe and the dizziness was so bad I couldn't stand sometimes. Some guys started having really really bad nightmares around a month of taking it everyday. One guy couldn't tell what day or time of day it was and accidentally took it 6 times in 24 hours because everytime he napped he thought it was a new day.
BrotherGecko wrote: Yah, I totally didn't take those pills. Nobody does, not even the people that tell you to take them. Massive stomach problems, sever dizziness, horrible nightmares causing lack of sleep....nope no thank you. Best part was when I was told by the people telling us that we had to take it was that mosquitoes can be found as high up as 2000ft....problem was we were going to be at 6000 to 8000ft the entire deployment. So why did we have to take them?
Never having had them, do you become acclimated to the effects over time?
After two weeks of taking it, no it was always very severe and the dizziness was so bad I couldn't stand sometimes. Some guys started having really really bad nightmares around a month of taking it everyday. One guy couldn't tell what day or time of day it was and accidentally took it 6 times in 24 hours because everytime he napped he thought it was a new day.
not everyoe gets effected like that just the most severe
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
Well, duh, that's why I asked.
To be fair, pain meds aren't the only thing. I take a BP medicine that was really rough for the first week or two but got better afterwards. After about a month, I don't notice the effects anymore.
Well... that makes sense regarding BP medicine as it's regulating your actual blood pressure... whereas the anti-malaria drugs are used to prevent infections. In a sense, makes your bodily system uninhabitable by the bug. For reference here's a list of those drugs and it's side-effect: http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/travel/bots/antimalarial_se.htm
After moving the goal so much and still failing to be right you resort to name calling? Even the old rock didn't sink that low.
In this thread we see the reason communicable diseases manage to still have outbreaks because people know better than public health officials and people should be locked up because of feelings instead of following medically indicated protocols based on the latest science which calls for self monitoring of symptoms for 21 days.
After two weeks of taking it, no it was always very severe and the dizziness was so bad I couldn't stand sometimes. Some guys started having really really bad nightmares around a month of taking it everyday. One guy couldn't tell what day or time of day it was and accidentally took it 6 times in 24 hours because everytime he napped he thought it was a new day.
You sure you guys weren't being used as a test case?
Seriously though, that does sound pretty rough, especially with the stories I've heard about the prolonged shifts you have to do.
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
Well, duh, that's why I asked.
To be fair, pain meds aren't the only thing. I take a BP medicine that was really rough for the first week or two but got better afterwards. After about a month, I don't notice the effects anymore.
Well... that makes sense regarding BP medicine as it's regulating your actual blood pressure... whereas the anti-malaria drugs are used to prevent infections. In a sense, makes your bodily system uninhabitable by the bug.
For reference here's a list of those drugs and it's side-effect:
http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/travel/bots/antimalarial_se.htm
The "1 pill a week, everybody takes it together" approach seems to be a good method. Lowest effective dose to minimize side effects while also maximizing compliance.
d-usa wrote: After moving the goal so much and still failing to be right you resort to name calling? Even the old rock didn't sink that low.
In this thread we see the reason communicable diseases manage to still have outbreaks because people know better than public health officials and people should be locked up because of feelings instead of following medically indicated protocols based on the latest science which calls for self monitoring of symptoms for 21 days.
It must be tiring to carry such a mighty chip on your shoulder. Consider several of your "public health officials" broke your own regs to do things like...go shopping, pardon us mere peasants with having less than godlike faith in your prognistications.
d-usa wrote:After moving the goal so much and still failing to be right you resort to name calling? Even the old rock didn't sink that low.
In this thread we see the reason communicable diseases manage to still have outbreaks because people know better than public health officials and people should be locked up because of feelings instead of following medically indicated protocols based on the latest science which calls for self monitoring of symptoms for 21 days.
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
After two weeks of taking it, no it was always very severe and the dizziness was so bad I couldn't stand sometimes. Some guys started having really really bad nightmares around a month of taking it everyday. One guy couldn't tell what day or time of day it was and accidentally took it 6 times in 24 hours because everytime he napped he thought it was a new day.
You sure you guys weren't being used as a test case?
Seriously though, that does sound pretty rough, especially with the stories I've heard about the prolonged shifts you have to do.
Well we also go to wear permethrin treated uniforms. Which also has a whole host of great side effects. After the first day of wearing a treated uniformed I made sure to wash it repeatedly until the permethrin was gone.
But no we got all the standard no need to worry everything is fine equipment and drugs.
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
Well, duh, that's why I asked.
To be fair, pain meds aren't the only thing. I take a BP medicine that was really rough for the first week or two but got better afterwards. After about a month, I don't notice the effects anymore.
Well... that makes sense regarding BP medicine as it's regulating your actual blood pressure... whereas the anti-malaria drugs are used to prevent infections. In a sense, makes your bodily system uninhabitable by the bug.
For reference here's a list of those drugs and it's side-effect:
http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/travel/bots/antimalarial_se.htm
The "1 pill a week, everybody takes it together" approach seems to be a good method. Lowest effective dose to minimize side effects while also maximizing compliance.
Its a once a day pill. As far as my research has gone side effects are not the exception but the standard. Maybe you could try it out see if you could take it everyday then do physical labor for 18 to 20 hours straight and maintain your opinion of a benevolent pharma industry. An I mean that in all seriousness. Your judging peoples experiences against the word of somebody who is paid to say everything is okay.
Well we also go to wear permethrin treated uniforms. Which also has a whole host of great side effects. After the first day of wearing a treated uniformed I made sure to wash it repeatedly until the permethrin was gone.
But no we got all the standard no need to worry everything is fine equipment and drugs.
Hey, I think I have a bottle of that.
(checks camping gear)
Yup. Huh. Never noticed side effects, but maybe that's the difference between consumer grade and military grade. Also, not living in the things I spray with it with more than 18 hours or so, I suppose.
Well we also go to wear permethrin treated uniforms. Which also has a whole host of great side effects. After the first day of wearing a treated uniformed I made sure to wash it repeatedly until the permethrin was gone.
But no we got all the standard no need to worry everything is fine equipment and drugs.
Hey, I think I have a bottle of that.
(checks camping gear)
Yup. Huh. Never noticed side effects, but maybe that's the difference between consumer grade and military grade. Also, not living in the things I spray with it with more than 18 hours or so, I suppose.
Military used to get (not sure if they currently do) bottles of actual high concentrated fething DEET in a eye dropper like bottle. Just a drop on your labels is enough to keep those buggers away. I've yet to see that in the US consumer markets (but, I'm sure you can get 'em out of the states).
DEET plus Permethrin use has been linked to as the probable cause for Gulf War Syndrome. Never used DEET but you can get issued it by the bottle. There was a whole shipping box full of it at our COP. Glad I walked away from that. Actually I'm pretty sure you are not supposed to use DEET anymore but we did totally have a giant box of it lol
Between the living next to a burn pit, the treated uniforms, the pills, shots and repellents I hope I make 50 lol.
BrotherGecko wrote: DEET plus Permethrin use has been linked to as the probable cause for Gulf War Syndrome. Never used DEET but you can get issued it by the bottle. There was a whole shipping box full of it at our COP. Glad I walked away from that. Actually I'm pretty sure you are not supposed to use DEET anymore but we did totally have a giant box of it lol
Between the living next to a burn pit, the treated uniforms, the pills, shots and repellents I hope I make 50 lol.
Dunno man... I'd slather some toxic spills to ward these Alaskan buggers away:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Agreed, its just that kind of logic that make horror/disaster movies longer than 5 minutes.
Nuke it from orbit- roll credits.
Especially since there was a case recently of someone who recovered during the outbreak that was showing symptoms again just recently. "science" and "facts" change all the time.
Oh my gosh you're right . It's like that point in every outbreak movie where you're like "Don't open that vial!" "Of course that cough means something!" etc.
I think she was a bit preposterous. We had a close friend go to help with the epidemic, and he observed a volunteer / self-imposed quarantine for some days upon his return. This nurse seemed to really bristle at the idea of doing so whereas others voluntarily did it as a precaution... just seems to be counter-intuitive that as a nurse she would be upset about observing an obvious public health precaution (although it would've been best for her to do so willingly, obviously).
BrotherGecko wrote: DEET plus Permethrin use has been linked to as the probable cause for Gulf War Syndrome. Never used DEET but you can get issued it by the bottle. There was a whole shipping box full of it at our COP. Glad I walked away from that. Actually I'm pretty sure you are not supposed to use DEET anymore but we did totally have a giant box of it lol
Between the living next to a burn pit, the treated uniforms, the pills, shots and repellents I hope I make 50 lol.
MREs from the 1990s, living next to burn pits where for some reason human feces is always present....(ANA) not to mention the A-Hole units leaving country who just don't want to properly dermo that Computer/Printer or whatever and throw it on the burn pit, being force fed poisons to keep you from getting Malaria even though you live in a desert where the only water you have seen for 6 months comes in the form of a 1.5 liter bottle (best guess, I have no idea how big those things were, but definitely not 2 liters). Getting your "deployment shots" at least twice because the doctors are so fething incompetent that they keep losing everyone's shot records.
Yeah, im going to have to agree with you, 50 seems like a long shot
d-usa wrote:After moving the goal so much and still failing to be right you resort to name calling? Even the old rock didn't sink that low.
In this thread we see the reason communicable diseases manage to still have outbreaks because people know better than public health officials and people should be locked up because of feelings instead of following medically indicated protocols based on the latest science which calls for self monitoring of symptoms for 21 days.
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
No argument from me on that front and I won't fault anyone for taking issue with "shut up, we know what's best for you" kind of situations.
But someone still saying "shut up, you don't know what you are talking about, you are a troll" after you take the time to explain that malaria is actually still a thing and that there are legitimate reasons for taking actions to prevent it and point out sources and facts that back that up? Those are the people I take issue with.
It isn't always the case where you build up tolerance, like say pain meds.
Well, duh, that's why I asked.
To be fair, pain meds aren't the only thing. I take a BP medicine that was really rough for the first week or two but got better afterwards. After about a month, I don't notice the effects anymore.
Well... that makes sense regarding BP medicine as it's regulating your actual blood pressure... whereas the anti-malaria drugs are used to prevent infections. In a sense, makes your bodily system uninhabitable by the bug.
For reference here's a list of those drugs and it's side-effect:
http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/travel/bots/antimalarial_se.htm
The "1 pill a week, everybody takes it together" approach seems to be a good method. Lowest effective dose to minimize side effects while also maximizing compliance.
Its a once a day pill.
I was referring to the regimen used by the Swedish troops. They do the once a week pill (higher dose on that particular day, but still a lower weekly dose than the combined daily pills).
I'm pretty sure that the US military could improve whatever they are doing, and I also believe that anything government is going to be incredibly slow in doing so. I'm not trying to argue the position of "the military did the absolute best thing they could", just arguing against the "I know more than the board certified slowed doctors" position.
As far as my research has gone side effects are not the exception but the standard. Maybe you could try it out see if you could take it everyday then do physical labor for 18 to 20 hours straight and maintain your opinion of a benevolent pharma industry. An I mean that in all seriousness.
I didn't have to do 18-20 hours of hard physical labor nor will I ever claim that my stress level of work will come close to that of a front-line deployed military member.
But I have taken Isoniazid daily for 6 months after I became exposed to TB and I have taken the HIV drug-combo after a needle stick injury.
Your judging peoples experiences against the word of somebody who is paid to say everything is okay.
No, I'm judging "malaria isn't a problem" statements against the actual scientific data that shows, very clearly, that malaria actually still is a problem and which appears to infect more military members in Afghanistan than in tropical countries.
d-usa wrote: After moving the goal so much and still failing to be right you resort to name calling? Even the old rock didn't sink that low.
In this thread we see the reason communicable diseases manage to still have outbreaks because people know better than public health officials and people should be locked up because of feelings instead of following medically indicated protocols based on the latest science which calls for self monitoring of symptoms for 21 days.
It must be tiring to carry such a mighty chip on your shoulder. Consider several of your "public health officials" broke your own regs to do things like...go shopping, pardon us mere peasants with having less than godlike faith in your prognistications.
How many casual transmissions of Ebola did we have in the United States?
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
That's something I would have expected in WWI, not today. Institutionally the US military doesn't seem to treat its guys well at all though, or anyone for that matter.
I had nastyish side effects from Proguanil/Paludrine after 3-4 weeks in Afghan. I went to the med centre and a nurse instantly changed my prescription to doxy which I can tolerate. Professional and effective treatment with no issues with non compliance, exactly what should happen.
No, I'm judging "malaria isn't a problem" statements against the actual scientific data that shows, very clearly, that malaria actually still is a problem and which appears to infect more military members in Afghanistan than in tropical countries.
No your really not, your taking my statement that the AREA I WAS IN had zero malaria cases and according to the website you linked had NO REPORTED CASES, and then running with it to put words in my mouth, because according to you I said "theres no malaria in Afghanistan" which is BS as I have never said that in my life.
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
That's something I would have expected in WWI, not today. Institutionally the US military doesn't seem to treat its guys well at all though, or anyone for that matter.
I had nastyish side effects from Proguanil/Paludrine after 3-4 weeks in Afghan. I went to the med centre and a nurse instantly changed my prescription to doxy which I can tolerate. Professional and effective treatment with no issues with non compliance, exactly what should happen.
Side note and completely off topic: what unit were you with and what years? I loved our british allies in Afghanistan, your guys rules of engagement were so much nicer then ours that I would try to utilize the British TF's whenever I could for missions.
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
That's something I would have expected in WWI, not today. Institutionally the US military doesn't seem to treat its guys well at all though, or anyone for that matter.
I had nastyish side effects from Proguanil/Paludrine after 3-4 weeks in Afghan. I went to the med centre and a nurse instantly changed my prescription to doxy which I can tolerate. Professional and effective treatment with no issues with non compliance, exactly what should happen.
Indeed. Seems very unusual for a modern military from a first world country to not have access to healthcare for its own soldiers in the field.
Could maybe be due to differing cultures? Maybe we in the UK have less of that "suck it up" attitude?
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
That's something I would have expected in WWI, not today. Institutionally the US military doesn't seem to treat its guys well at all though, or anyone for that matter.
I had nastyish side effects from Proguanil/Paludrine after 3-4 weeks in Afghan. I went to the med centre and a nurse instantly changed my prescription to doxy which I can tolerate. Professional and effective treatment with no issues with non compliance, exactly what should happen.
Indeed. Seems very unusual for a modern military from a first world country to not have access to healthcare for its own soldiers in the field.
From everything I have heard every unit has a highly trained Motrin dispenser.
From everything I have heard every unit has a highly trained Motrin dispenser.
Pathetically that is about the most intelligence thing I have ever heard you say regarding the US Military.
However your still wrong. He/She is a highly trained Motrin dispenser that is able to fix pneumonia, broken legs, cancer and sucking chest wounds with nothing more then a pair of clean socks, water and some motrin.
Ohh sorry and important to note, off brand, because motrin is still to expensive.
To be fair there is none of that in the military. There is no doctor consultant nor will there ever be on. You get handed a bottle of pills and are to take until you are out of them. An if you have side effects your told to be quiet or lose rank. So you could see why some of us don't just take the experts at face value.
That's something I would have expected in WWI, not today. Institutionally the US military doesn't seem to treat its guys well at all though, or anyone for that matter.
I had nastyish side effects from Proguanil/Paludrine after 3-4 weeks in Afghan. I went to the med centre and a nurse instantly changed my prescription to doxy which I can tolerate. Professional and effective treatment with no issues with non compliance, exactly what should happen.
Indeed. Seems very unusual for a modern military from a first world country to not have access to healthcare for its own soldiers in the field.
Could maybe be due to differing cultures? Maybe we in the UK have less of that "suck it up" attitude?
At least with the US Army it can be weird. We often say there is a Big Army and Little Army. Big Army is the Pentagon and Division command, generally speaking they often care a lot about us but they do it in awkward ways sometimes. Little Army is like brigade and below level. That is where I often saw the bad stuff. Usually it was a brigade commander trying to be tough on their boys that stupid harmful things became policy. An it would infect those below them that also wanted to impress their bosses. Lucky for me, my deployment saw my company seperated from all other levels of command. So when doxy started to cause bad side effects they just told us to stop taking it.
In November, the Army dropped the anti-malarial drug mefloquine. Users had complained the pill caused psychiatric symptoms ranging from nightmares, depression and paranoia to auditory hallucinations and mental breakdowns.
Which is better, 250 Marines having those above listed symptoms or possibly losing 1 guy to malaria for a bit?
It's almost like the process worked and the health branch of the military uses evidence based practice to continuously evaluate and alter their practice based on the latest evidence and risks.
But hey, keep on posting and you will get something right:
- claims there is no malaria in Afghanistan (false)
- claims there is zero malaria in these particular provinces (false)
- claims there are 150 cases of malaria in Florida (false, and the cases that did happen all came from foreign countries, including military members in foreign countries)
- claims there is no malaria in the desert (false)
- claims that no military members got malaria (false)
This is like a textbook case of why you leave public health to public health experts and epidemiology to epidemiologists.
Did you email the commandant with your concerns about the pills?
I think we have found our new rock for this thread.
I think the problem here is one of perception. D-and the like (whose position I agree with here, generally) perceives a troubling position from the opposite corner that seems to disregard scientific evidence. The other side, Gazz, and the like, are using their own experiences in the matter. I'm guessing (just a shot in n the dark here) is D is assuming that the Gazz's folks are anti science (no evolution, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc. and without a solid understanding of science) and Gazz's folks are a bit more nuanced in their beliefs.
See here's the thing: science doesn't care gak bull about what anybody thinks. It just is. What matters is who can communicate their positions the most effectively at any point in time to make others understand it. So, my liberal arts degree is needed after all.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think the problem here is one of perception. D-and the like (whose position I agree with here, generally) perceives a troubling position from the opposite corner that seems to disregard scientific evidence. The other side, Gazz, and the like, are using their own experiences in the matter. I'm guessing (just a shot in n the dark here) is D is assuming that the Gazz's folks are anti science (no evolution, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc. and without a solid understanding of science) and Gazz's folks are a bit more nuanced in their beliefs.
See here's the thing: science doesn't care gak bull about what anybody thinks. It just is. What matters is who can communicate their positions the most effectively at any point in time to make others understand it. So, my liberal arts degree is needed after all.
no, actually. My position is one that the CDC maps agrees with, if there isn't malaria in an area why were we forced to take pills that had terrible side effects?
I am well aware of the wonders of science, I am not some right wing nut job that thinks the world is a couple thousand years old, I am not a follower of the divine creations BS and I fully believe in evolution and Darwinism.
However, every single time I disagree with something that a doctor or scientist says is fact, you have people like D-USA coming on and trying to label me as that nut job who refuses to send his kids to school because they might teach them about evolution.
Just because a doctor says something is true does not make it true. The number of times I was told by doctors that I had a sprained ankle and needed to stop complaining about it would be astounding if it weren't for the number of other horror stories about healthcare in the military. (Btw my ankle was broken and im about to go in for my 2nd surgery to repair it, roughly 6 years after it was injured). So when I am told to take Anti-Malaria pills because im deploying to a part of Afghanistan that has zero reported cases of Malaria...because its a desert, I tend to take it with a grain of salt so to speak.
Ghazkuul wrote: However, every single time I disagree with something that a doctor or scientist says is fact, you have people like D-USA coming on and trying to label me as that nut job who refuses to send his kids to school because they might teach them about evolution.
D and myself aren't making you out to be a right wing nutjob, you're just wrong. Despite your attempt a few pages ago to drag politics in to this debate (which by the way, I'm still waiting for you find where I have professed support for either Clinton or Sanders), it really has feth all to do with it.
I mean, let's be honest here... you make this statement:
Ghazkuul wrote: Good for you, it was also a bunch of board certified retards....I mean doctors, including epidemiologists, who told the military it is a great idea to force feed troops anti malaria pills while they are deployed to afghanistan, even though the pills themselves caused significant health concerns.
Which when you were called out about it on another thread, you said this:
Ghazkuul wrote: Please continue to take my comments out of context
So what, exactly, is the context here that everyone is missing? Did you really expect people not to react to something as asinine as what you said?
It should also be noted that no one gives a gak about the fact that you took an anti-malaria pill because you were sent to country that is known to have malaria. Just because the place you were in has few, if any, confirmed cases of malaria, doesn't change the fact that you were sent to a country that has malaria. Of course, none of this has anything to do with this nurse suing because of the idiotic way she was handled after returning to the US.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I think the problem here is one of perception. D-and the like (whose position I agree with here, generally) perceives a troubling position from the opposite corner that seems to disregard scientific evidence. The other side, Gazz, and the like, are using their own experiences in the matter. I'm guessing (just a shot in n the dark here) is D is assuming that the Gazz's folks are anti science (no evolution, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, etc. and without a solid understanding of science) and Gazz's folks are a bit more nuanced in their beliefs.
See here's the thing: science doesn't care gak bull about what anybody thinks. It just is. What matters is who can communicate their positions the most effectively at any point in time to make others understand it. So, my liberal arts degree is needed after all.
no, actually. My position is one that the CDC maps agrees with, if there isn't malaria in an area why were we forced to take pills that had terrible side effects?
I am well aware of the wonders of science, I am not some right wing nut job that thinks the world is a couple thousand years old, I am not a follower of the divine creations BS and I fully believe in evolution and Darwinism.
However, every single time I disagree with something that a doctor or scientist says is fact, you have people like D-USA coming on and trying to label me as that nut job who refuses to send his kids to school because they might teach them about evolution.
Just because a doctor says something is true does not make it true. The number of times I was told by doctors that I had a sprained ankle and needed to stop complaining about it would be astounding if it weren't for the number of other horror stories about healthcare in the military. (Btw my ankle was broken and im about to go in for my 2nd surgery to repair it, roughly 6 years after it was injured). So when I am told to take Anti-Malaria pills because im deploying to a part of Afghanistan that has zero reported cases of Malaria...because its a desert, I tend to take it with a grain of salt so to speak.
So basically, exactly what I said. D perceives you as anti-science and your position is a bit more nuanced.
I perceive him as a guy who thinks he knows what he is talking about despite multiple sources of data showing him that he was send to a country with malaria.
According to your article, it seems less than 100 cases of malaria cropped up in Afghanastan. Compare that to a potential of 10 percent of doses of anti malaria drug causing nasty side effects.
,
Yes, but now we're having a different argument as opposed to the original one ("not a single Marine in my unit got Malaria", and 2 pages of arguing about how rare it is).
In any event, this whole Malaria thing is totally off topic.
Ouze wrote: Yes, but now we're having a different argument.
You dang young uns make it hard to keep up. I shall find a shady tree without giant pine cones and rest under it. Carry on.
The thing the malaria discussion did illustrate, though, going by the linked articles in our posts is that medical knowledge is not cut and dried, even for something being worked on as long as Malaria, so a bit of caution without going into outright panic over Ebola is not necessarily a bad thing.
According to your article, it seems less than 100 cases of malaria cropped up in Afghanastan. Compare that to a potential of 10 percent of doses of anti malaria drug causing nasty side effects. ,
The problem with the "malaria chemoprophylaxis is stupid because mefloquine has the potential for nasty side effects" argument is that mefloquine is not the drug everybody is taking.
Per DoD guidelines the frontline drug for chemoprophylaxis in areas with non-resistant malaria is chloroquine. In areas with resistant malaria the drugs of choice are either doxycycline (which I think is the drug most of our members on here are familiar with) or atovaquone-proguanil. Mefloquine is restricted to folks with an intolerance to the other first line drugs.
But looking at the whole thread so far the "the military is stupid for giving people doxy because mefloquine has bad side effects" argument is probably as reasonable as the "the military is stupid for making me take malaria chemoprohylaxis in a country with malaria" argument.
And to bring it back full circle to the topic of ebola:
At the beginning of this thread I thought that it was pretty silly for the military to pretty much put deployed units on a 21 day lockdown after returning from areas with ebola when either self monitoring or active surveillance has been proven to be an effective post-exposure surveillance method. But if there are more military folks that are convinced that they know more than...
Relapse wrote: so a bit of caution without going into outright panic over Ebola is not necessarily a bad thing.
And that ties us nicely right back to the first post, actually. The crux is whether not not a bit of caution went too far. I think the Ebola panic was clearly overblown, and I think the forced quarantine - after passing tests with no fever - was dumb.
While I'd greatly prefer to avoid "out of an abundance of caution" to become out next "for national security reasons" - i.e. spackling over reason and sense with a buzzword - I reiterate that I think she should lose her suit; as I think the state does and should have very wide latitude for quarantines, and that politically motivated stupidity is better resolved by the voters than by having the courts possibly tie the state's hands. I don't think she should have been quarantined just as strongly as I feel New Jersey had the right to, ultimately (which I know is sort of a fine distinction and probably puts me at odds with D and Scooty).
While I'd greatly prefer to avoid "out of an abundance of caution" to become out next "for national security reasons" - i.e. spackling over reason and sense with a buzzword - I reiterate that I think she should lose her suit; as I think the state does and should have very wide latitude for quarantines, and that politically motivated stupidity is better resolved by the voters than by having the courts possibly tie the state's hands. I don't think she should have been quarantined just as strongly as I feel New Jersey had the right to, ultimately (which I know is sort of a fine distinction and probably puts me at odds with D and Scooty).
Based on what we know today it was a dumb decision, but I also agree that we shouldn't punish people for decisions that were made in the past when their knowledge may have been different.
I think it should come down to specifically "why" the decision was made as well as determining if the implementation could have been better.
To find out "why" we will need to figure out what the communication and reasoning was between Christ Christie and the officials in his administration. If they can show that they made the decision because they thought that they were following what they thought were sound medical guidelines then they should have more leeway in implementing it. If they made the decision because they wanted to be seen as tough on Ebola and were playing a political game, then there should be consequences. I honestly think that the decision was based more on the later, but I also admit that it will likely be very hard to prove.
She could probably have better luck if she could push back about the implementation and I would imagine that even in New Jersey there was a hospital with a single isolation room somewhere in the state instead of having her sit in a tent somewhere, but I don't know if that will go anywhere either.
According to your article, it seems less than 100 cases of malaria cropped up in Afghanastan. Compare that to a potential of 10 percent of doses of anti malaria drug causing nasty side effects.
,
The problem with the "malaria chemoprophylaxis is stupid because mefloquine has the potential for nasty side effects" argument is that mefloquine is not the drug everybody is taking.
Per DoD guidelines the frontline drug for chemoprophylaxis in areas with non-resistant malaria is chloroquine. In areas with resistant malaria the drugs of choice are either doxycycline (which I think is the drug most of our members on here are familiar with) or atovaquone-proguanil. Mefloquine is restricted to folks with an intolerance to the other first line drugs.
But looking at the whole thread so far the "the military is stupid for giving people doxy because mefloquine has bad side effects" argument is probably as reasonable as the "the military is stupid for making me take malaria chemoprohylaxis in a country with malaria" argument.
And to bring it back full circle to the topic of ebola:
At the beginning of this thread I thought that it was pretty silly for the military to pretty much put deployed units on a 21 day lockdown after returning from areas with ebola when either self monitoring or active surveillance has been proven to be an effective post-exposure surveillance method. But if there are more military folks that are convinced that they know more than...
...then the decision to keep them under quarantine starts to make more sense.
Not stupid at all, since it was the drug of choice for a while before the side effects were finally recognized and accepted really not that long ago. You of all people on these boards realize we don't have complete knowledge of medicine. Was the Ebola coming back on that person a surprise? From what I understand it was. I don't think we should lock people down, but finding what constitutes reasonable caution with an illness can be tricky ground.
You do amazing things in your job and I am not going to get into an extended disagreement with you since you know much about medicine I will never learn. I do know enough, though to realize there are several schools of thought on treatments and preventative procedures for various infections.
Medicine is changing every day, and it is very true that we need to be able to be flexible and change with new knowledge. It is also true that the government is slower with those changes that they should be, no denying that from me.
My problem was more with the blanket statements that started popping up, that's all.
d-usa wrote: Medicine is changing every day, and it is very true that we need to be able to be flexible and change with new knowledge. It is also true that the government is slower with those changes that they should be, no denying that from me.
My problem was more with the blanket statements that started popping up, that's all.
One thing being part of the conversations on these boards is that blanket statements are in fact, not good. Many times in the past I had was what I took to be an infallible outlook, only to see it poked full of holes. The biggest one I remember having with you were the conversations on capital punishment and the food for thought you gave me. For those times, even though it doesn't't seem like it, I thank you.
Ouze wrote: I don't think she should have been quarantined just as strongly as I feel New Jersey had the right to, ultimately (which I know is sort of a fine distinction and probably puts me at odds with D and Scooty).
Here's the thing, I most definitely believe that the State has the authority to force quarantine, when needed, for the sake of public health. However, given what we know then and what we know now, it was a gross overreaction on Christie's part that did nothing to drive more fear into people that were already afraid (albeit irrationally). I agree with D, he was trying to be Tough on Ebola because that's what people wanted. Of course, anyone that has actually taken the time to learn about ebolavirus outside of the talking heads on television knows that the way Americans reacted to ebola was fething moronic.
I do agree 100% that in this case, she was unconstitutionally held against her will and was deprived due process in New Jersey (as was anyone who has ever been forced to stay in New Jersey).
The crux is whether not not a bit of caution went too far. I think the Ebola panic was clearly overblown, and I think the forced quarantine - after passing tests with no fever - was dumb.
tough on Ebola