Abort-inte en enkel fråga

En bra genomgång av många perspektiv, inklusive historisk, om abort:

It’s Infanticide: Legalize Abortion Anyway.
1 879 visningar•17 maj 2019 à-bas-le-ciel

En gynekolog doktor som gick från ”pro choice” till så kallad ”pro life” som ger detaljer som känns rätt jobbiga i abort processen.

Kan abort leda till minskad brott?

New economic research resurfaces debate about the link between legalized abortion and crime reduction

Det finns studier som funnit en stark koppling mellan införande av ”fri abort” och en kraftig minskning knappt 20 år senare i brottsstatistik. Kopplingen känns inte som något som är svårt att finna förklaring till. Om någon vill ha abort, så innebär det att modern inte vill ha barn då. Om hon måste föda barnet ändå, så är barnet oönskat. Ett oönskat barn får inte samma bemötande som ett önskat. Det är mycket större risk att det barnet hamnar utanför ett positivt liv för sig och samhället.

Min oslipad inställning

Det är bättre med tillgång till legal välutförd abort än att 50000 kvinnor (enligt WHO ca 2019) dör i andra försök att avbryta en oönskad graviditet.

Det är bättre med andra sätt att förhindra oönskade graviditeter. Tyvärr har den populära p-piller många effekter som gör att det känns för mig inte som det bästa alternativet. (Biverkningar i kvinnans hälsa, minskad libido som saboterar hela ”meningen” med aktiviteten)

Det är inte bara kvinnan som bör ha någon påverkan på fertiliserade embryot i henne. Klart är att det påverkar henne starkt och att hon borde har ett starkt påverkan på att eventuellt få begära abort. Samtidigt har den som gav sperma delen av fertiliserade ägget, i alla fall om det var consensual, en viss investering och rätt till intresse, om han ville ta ansvaret (alltså inte ”donator” som ”gjort sitt”), även om det är svårt att reda ut om någon part vill straffa den andra med abort resp icke abort.

Vi har fantastiska möjligheter att få barn att överleva nu, som troligen på grund av vissa svagheter hade dött utan medicinska ingrepp. Eventuellt kan dessa individer få ett svårt liv, orsaka ett svårt liv för föräldrarna, orsaka stora samhälleliga kostnader. Vissa av dessa individer kan eventuellt ha sådana gåvor på andra plan att de kan berika andras liv och samhället i stort. Alla dessa saker kan gälla även de som aborteras, men oftast utan att de har genetiska svagheter.

Många har svårt att få egna barn trots att de vill. Adoption ifrån andra länder kan ha många problem, även om det kan vara ett alternativ. Jag tycker att man kan aktivt försöka förespegla och stödja (men inte ”pracka på”) bortadoption som alternativ till abort. Det är inte bara för de som vill adoptera (och den som vill födas!) men för att många kvinnor som får abort kan i efterhand få olika psykologiska, själsliga och kroppsliga men av det.

Jag tycker även att en världsbefolkning som planar ut eller t o m minskar har många fördelar för ekosystemet som vi ingår i, och då även för oss själva. Även om jag föredrar andra barnbegränsningssätt i första hand, så är även abort ett sätt att bromsa ökningen.

Samvetsfrihet för vårdpersonal

Det är många som tycker att till exempel alla barnmorskor måste helhjärtat stödja ”helt fri” aborträtt. I annat fall så riskerar man att ”tvinga” kvinnor att inte begära abort, på grund av socialt tryck.

Just nu i Sverige är det rätt stort tryck att betrakta abortfrågan som en enkel fråga, trots att den är rätt komplex.

Det känns för mig som en barnmorska som helst inte utför, och helst inte ens vill ge råd att välja, abort kan vara minst lika attraktiv för en kvinna som inte vill välja abort, som en barnmorska som helhjärtat accepterar abort. Om man har gott om sökanden till en barnmorsketjänst och kan välja bland i övrigt lika meriterade kandidater, bör man se till att det finns tillgång till en som kan även erbjuda abort. Om det finns abort accepterande barnmorskor som kan väljas av patienter som vill, så tycker jag att man ökar möjligheten till ett fördjupat val, om man även har barnmorskor som kan positivt beskriva alternativ till abort. Så jag tycker man bör vara öppen till att anställa vårdpersonal som inte är för abort, i alla fall om man kan erbjuda patienter kontakt med personal som accepterar abort.

Jag skulle inte säga att en BRA biologi lärare måste var en som tycker det är bra att i labbet skära upp en massa nyss levande grodor. På samma sätt tycker jag inte en BRA barnmorska/gynekolog/mm måste tycka att abort är bra, helt enkelt. På många sätt kan en med en vördnad för livet ha mer att erbjuda (därmed inte stöd för folk som är beredda att ”döda (t ex abortläkare) för sin ’vördnad för livet'”)

Egen erfarenhet

Vårt tredje barn var inte planerat. När havandeskapet var ett faktum så blev den abstrakta abortfrågan mycket konkret. Alla kraven som man hade upplevt i småbarnsföräldrarskapet vägde tungt i vågskålen för abort, liksom allmänna accepterandet av aborträtten. Trots att vi allvarligt övervägde abort och inte tyckte det var en absolut synd, så kändes det inte som att enkelt val. Inte utan rädsla och djupa suckar, lät vi havandeskapet fortsätta och har inte ångrat det.

Vad tycker du jag har missat?

SciShow kommentarkamp

Jeff Forssell shared a link.

November 24, 2019

Har alltid varit vetenskapsintresserad (har en fil lic i Fysik) och det finns många jätte fina YouTube videos om intressanta saker. En kanal som haft en hel del bra saker heter SciShow. Tyvärr visar det sig att de har auktoritetstro högst när det gäller ”vacciner är säkra och effektiva, amen”. Denna bedrövliga video har den antivetensakpliga grunden, typ: ”the science is settled”. Minns inte om de säger just det men de säger ”there is no debate”.
Dess titel och bild avslöjar inte om det är för eller emot.
https://youtu.be/Rzxr9FeZf1g
Jag sätter in min kommentar och någons motkommentar nedan.
Men jag förstår de som inte vill klicka på fanskapet.

Jeff Forssell Jeff Forssell
för 6 dagar sedan
When vaccinations are tested (preferably not by the producer) against real placebos (in stead of other vaccines, adjuvent soups etc which are always used) we will be able to say something scientifically about their safety. But that isn’t done. (and of course if they are so safe, why has the vaccine part of the medical industry been exempted from being sued for damages?)
When a real comparison of unvaccinated and vaccinated groups for their total health picture we might be able to start to really asses the ”benefits”. That hasn’t been done either.
The young fellow making this video can perhaps be excused because of his age to not know that people like me (74 yr) that lived with and HAD measles find the current panic about measles way out of all sense of reality. (But he should have/could have checked the mortality of measles and how it had gone down 99% way before the vaccines came, and claimed victory)

Jeff Forssell Det var först idag jag såg att jag hade fått motkommentar:
Vary Olla
för 5 dagar sedan
Your rather comical if facile attempt at logic here does not lend to your argument. First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos as well as are randomized blind studies = making this common assertion by vaccine opponents oxymoronic on it’s face.

Next is that there have been countless studies worldwide – both governmental and non-governmental – looking into the efficacy of vaccines which took into account various socioeconomic variables of those populations as well as things such as vaccinated vs. unvaccinated status. That therefore = makes another of your purported claims fallacious as well…………not going very well is it.

Lastly is the fact of ”who” is the primary purchaser of vaccines???? Answer: governments. So in the US as an example the Congress via the annual HHS budget appropriates money via child health grants to purchase vaccines. Those vaccines = are then given away. If the individual receiving the vaccines has government sponsored healthcare then the government also pays the provider as well as paying for the vaccine = making it a further economic ”loss”. Meanwhile if they have private insurance then that insurer pays the prescriber while vaccines are typically given free or at low cost to the individual under the preventative health section of their policy. So what they pay the doctor for the office visit often does not even cover the cost of the vaccine.

Moral of the story: so the government as the ”end user” of vaccines accepts at the time of purchase that a small percentage of people might react per the possible side effects identified during those clinical trials as well as post-marketing surveillance. Accordingly it created the VICP to deal with such eventualities. So long as vaccine manufacturers abide by all applicable regulations relating to their manufacture to produce a legal product which is then sold to the government = the government accepts responsibility for known adverse results which might occur since it bought the product + created the schedules by which it is administered + and distributed it for said administration.

On a side note. Measles since you referenced it is one of the worse infectious diseases out there. Your surviving it as a child = made you LUCKY – nothing more. Measles kills each year worldwide >100,000 people – mostly children under 5. Measles is also a leading cause of childhood blindness as well as other neurocognitive issues such as deafness etc.. Lastly is that measles is one of the most infectious diseases out there with an R0 rating of 12-18 = or 2-3X that of other infectious diseases.

Meanwhile the MeV virus which causes measles ravages your immune system. It disrupts the dendritic cells of your lymph system responsible for antibody activation. Depending upon the severity of the case upwards of 70% of your circulatory antibodies can be wiped out = basically erasing your previous immunity to things. This means that a person lucky enough to survive having measles is then at significant risk post-measles for secondary infections for a period of weeks to months until those damaged immune cells can be replaced. In other words a person can survive measles and die of some secondary infection afterwards given that damage done to their immune system. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. Better luck next time.

Jeff Forssell Så för tillfället försöker jag andas djupt medans jag funderar vilka detaljer jag skall dra upp.

Funderar på kort ”Which commonly used vaccine was safety tested against a placebo and what was that placebo?”

Jeff Forssell
för 8 minuter sedan (redigerad)
@Vary Olla Thank you for your effort!
And for inspiring me to finally check how to get BOLD and italic and even strikeout in YT comments.
You clearly have a lot of ideas about what you are talking about. But for a person that is scientifically oriented, you talk a bit much about ”luck”
You are correct that I was lucky that I didn’t die as a child. Measles is very contagious. All my friends got it. It would probably be more newsworthy to find someone that reached their 20s without getting it. But nobody was afraid of it. The schools weren’t full of ”childhood blindness as well as other neurocognitive issues such as deafness ”. I guess we were all ”just lucky” 🙂 . Or could there be a more scientific way of looking at?
There are a lot of ”unlucky” people [in the world] that die while they have measles. They also (like the people of Sweden in the 1860s) are not ”lucky enough” to have clean running water, refrigeration, good housing etc. In Sweden (as in most developed country similarly) the mortality of measles decreased about 99,7% by the 1950s. But most people that have listened in Biology class could probably not give a correct answer to the question ”Between 1860 and 1950 mortality in measles in Sweden decreased 99,7%, how much of that could be because of vaccine?”
Right answer 0% WHY? 1950 was 2 decades before measles vaccin came into practice.

I’m trying to excuse your ”You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. Better luck next time” and hoping that your assumption is no less understandable than when I myself believed the dogma of the vaccin church: ”Vaccins are safe and effective, amen” and thought is was well-grounded in science (but we wouldn’t include the ”amen” 🙂 ). I have since become an apostate (someone that leaves a faith).

_ ”First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos”_ — is your first point. I have really looked for that. Please give me at least 1 commonly used vaccine that has been safety tested against a ” placebo ” AND what that placebo contained AND the source where I can check that
looking forward to your answer!

Jeppson Rolf Och här är en 80-talist som oxå hade flera av ”barnshukdomarna”. Msslingen var det flera i min klass som hade och INGEN av dom vare sig dog blev blinda döva eller ngt annat! Vi hade både mässling, röda hund, vattkoppor, kikhosta och påssjuka. Bara scharlakansfeber minns jag ingen som hade. Och på den finns inget vaccin.

Jeff Forssell Och scharlakansfeber dödade 3 gånger så många som mässlingen 1860

Jeff Forssell Vary har kommit med ny motkommentar:

”Vary Olla
för 20 timmar sedan
1 – anecdotal evidence is merely evidence of anecdotes. Also people are not typically afraid of things unless they understand the risk said thing can present. So people who are ”on the outside looking in” = simply see measles as a rash and temporary illness. Meanwhile those on the inside who actually understand the illness and what it does = recognizes that measles is an infectious disease which ravages the human body. It can massively disrupt your immune system – basically ”erasing” your previously acquired immunity to things by destroying up to 70% of your circulatory antibodies – to say nothing of how it can result in encephalopathy leading to a host of neurocognitive problems. So the result of a measles infection is that the individual – should they survive = are then at a significantly greater risk post-measles for secondary infections given that impairment to their immune system caused by the virus. So it is NOT a benign illness.

2 – your Sweden example = irrelevant. It is however emblematic of how vaccine opponents grossly fail to think about the topic. Sweden = northern European country near the Artic Circle. As such it does not see anywhere near the level of immigration that a country like the US does. So what does this mean??? It means that if as a result of previous infection chains being controlled the incidence of an infectious disease is low = then the likelihood of new exposures is similarly low because outsiders are less likely to go there and reintroduce the illness.

3 – now look at a country like the US. Huge population compared to Sweden. That population further sees a huge influx of travelers each year to say nothing of immigrants from Third World countries where measles is endemic. That makes the likelihood of someone introducing a new chain of infection = massively higher than for a place like Sweden.

4 – last but not least. Mortality rates reflect the relative health status of the individual pre-sickness + their access to healthcare and the level of that healthcare. So once again a small country whose population is largely ”living in a bubble” with little chance of exposure from outside the country = can limit it’s exposure to outside pathogens as well as it has a smaller population which is thereby easier to treat medically. Accordingly Sweden by nothing else than the numbers and a socialized healthcare system would naturally see better statistics from an epidemiological standpoint compared to larger countries whose own population is diverse in it’s health status being comprised of a wide cross-section of socioeconomic variables.

5 – thus we come back to the US where the healthcare system is not socialized resulting in a wide disparity of access to healthcare in places. Meanwhile as noted in #3 = it also has a massively higher risk of infectious diseases being introduced into it’s large population from the outside which then sustains new ongoing chains of infection. So mortality rates are not the metric for considering vaccine employment = incidence of infection and chance of new exposures are. All a mortality rate tells you is if individuals were able to be treated in a modern healthcare system and their general healthcare status. Meanwhile incidence of infection is what tells you if vaccine employment is working or not.

Moral of the story: as history shows we see a recurrent theme whereby wherever vaccines are employed = incidence of infection drops like a stone in the subsequent years which demonstrates the efficacy of vaccines. So you can parrot all the talking points you want such as vaccine opponents spew onto the internet. Unless you actually think about what those talking points represent however = you’ll keep making the same errors of deduction. Anti-vaxxers make a habit of a highly facile approach to data and what goes on. Have a nice day.”

När Vary pratar om ”rabbla talking points” kan jag inte annat än tänka på

Man skall inte kasta sten i glashus

eller

”the pot calling the kettle black”

Han har åtminstone önskat mig ”a nice day” 🙂

Men han har, trots sina 5 långa points inte svarat den enda frågan jag ställde, trots att den stod i FETSTIL!

Om någon bryr sig, här finns mitt nya svar till Vary

Jeff Forssell
för 1 sekund sedan
@Vary Olla Thanks for wishing me a nice day!

A bit uncertain how to continue, but it seems important to at least go to the bottom of your FIRST point in your rebuttals to me before exploring the MANY other points you are bring up. In spite of putting my question in bold (thanks again! 🙂 though I found that in that question I had to put in many * s to get it done! ) you haven’t answered my question. If you don’t answer it, I will have to assume that when you dug (and you are a digger!) you found (also! I am also a digger too! High five!) that the vaccines commonly used and assumed safe have not been compared to anything that a scientist would call a placebo. (Though a researcher paid by the producer can agree to call all kinds of things a placebo)

_ ”First of course is that Phase 3 clinical trials DO employ placebos”_ — is your first point. I have really looked for that. Please give me at least 1 commonly used vaccine that has been safety tested against a ” placebo ” AND what that placebo contained AND the source where I can check that?

looking forward to your answer!

Vary Olla
för 11 timmar sedan
Rotateq – you have access to the internet. Accordingly use it for something other than posting mundane commentary and revalidating your incorrect beliefs. Clinical trials typically don’t detail placebo ingredients. PBS – Phosphate Buffered Solution – read saline with stabilizers – is a commonly used product.

So apparently you did not look very hard as one can find Phase 3 clinical trial results online with a 5 second Google search. Accordingly one is forced to conclude that – like all vaccine opponents – you are not actually seeking information.

Instead you quibble for the sake of quibbling as vaccine opponents invariably are simply too inured into their worldviews to consider the reality that they have been chasing ”internet rumor” in the form of the pseudo-scientific nonsense the anti-vaccine industry passes around on the net and in the echo chambers of social media – utterly unreliable platforms for news acquisition in case you missed the memo.

p.s. – vaccines are not ”assumed” to be safe = nonsensical statement. Each year literally billions of doses of vaccine are administered worldwide. Meanwhile literally billions of vaccinated people are walking around the planet who are just fine – some having been vaccinated decades previously. That = the largest and most comprehensive clinical trial you could ask for.

Maria E Jeff Forssell
Vet du/man vad personen arbetar som? Skulle gissa lobbyist(påminner om en ’VoF-attityd’).?

Jeff Forssell Om man går till hans YouTube sida är den alldeles tom. Location: United States Men han har 8 prenumeranter!? Kanske man skall prenumerera! Jag provar och ser om jag får något när han är ute och ”kämpar för vetenskapen” (eller gör skäl for lobbylönen om han får)

Tyvärr behöver man inte vara ekonomisk bunden lobbyist för att ”gå i krig mot de otrogna” (i vetenskaps namn förstås). Man behöver bara omges av en ständig flöde av sound bites från skola, media, barna”vård”stemplet, så VET man att dogman är sann

Jeff Forssell Google search show hen active in other VAX discussions but even other stuff:

like Ancient Aliens Debunked – (full movie) HD

Vary OllaКүн мурун
When HC was bought out by A&E Networks some years back = it went into the gutter. Today it is more entertainment than actual history with it’s programming largely being composed of reality TV twaddle and assorted historical fiction trash. So years ago when it first went onto the air it showed actual historical documentaries. Today it shows trash that is usually a result of small foreign production outfits who create some program – usually questionable in it’s accuracy = and sell it to the network. _C’est La Vie_

även Homeopathy, Pyramidbyggandet

Jeff Forssell Och jag replikerar, inte utan att säga till mig själv ”f–n nu är det över midnatt, hur många timmar har du hållit på, trots att chansen att påverka Vary är nästan obefintlig?” Nå väl nu har jag i alla fall lyckats hitta de andra ingredienserna i Rotarix. Tyvärr syns inte fetstil här. (testar ???????, det funkar om man går till https://yaytext.com/bold-italic/ men jag orkar inte göra om här.)

Jeff Forssell
för 13 minuter sedan (redigerad)
@Vary Olla
I have been using the Internet. The kind of stuff you distribute is very easy to find. But details are much harder to find. As YOU point out ”Clinical trials typically don’t detail placebo ingredients.” Why not? Sugar pill or saline solution are pretty easy to put there.
I hadn’t heard about the the non placebo praxis in the vaccine trials before I noticed myself while plowing through the heavy GSKs Rotavirus vaccine trials. From the NEJM 12 page ”Safety and Efficacy of an Attenuated Vaccine
against Severe Rotavirus Gastroenteritis” on page 2 you can find:

”The HRV vaccine (Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals)
contained 10 median cell-culture infective
doses of the RIX4414 vaccine strain. The placebo
had the same constituents as the active vaccine
but without the vaccine virus. After the vaccine or
placebo had been reconstituted with 1.3 ml of liquid
calcium carbonate buffer, ……”

If I check FASS (swedish medical directory) contents are also ”sackaros, dinatrium Adipat, Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium” (sugar, disodium adipate, DMEM). None of these ingredients are safer or cheaper than saline! Why are they used in a so-called placebo?

About DMEM
https://www.bioind.com/…/documentation/msds/11-055_2_.pdf

3.3.3 Inhalation: May be harmful if inhaled. Material may be irritating to mucous
membranes and upper respiratory tract.
3.3.4 Ingestion: May be harmful if swallowed.

About the adipate:
https://echa.europa.eu/…/-/registered-dossier/12012/7/3/2 :
4640 mg/kg bw dose group: acute dilatation of the heart and acute hyperemia; decay of inner organs. ( these were the symptoms in the rats killed by the dose )

I don’t feel like you have been trying to be respectful. I am obviously digging deeper than ”the 5 second Google searches” and I don’t find ”Clinical trials typically don’t detail placebo ingredients.” to be a satisfactory state of affairs.
You say about me: ”Accordingly one is forced to conclude that – like all vaccine opponents – you are not actually seeking information.” You somehow know ALL vaccine opponents. A rather simplistic cop out when talking about ”the other side”. Most (pretty near all) people find it troubling to see information that would force them to reassess their current beliefs. I am getting that feeling about you.
Do you find ANY of the three sources I use above to be ”utterly unreliable platforms”?

You have named Rotareq, but you haven’t given a source . Your information is so fuzzy I don’t even know if you have checked that it HAS the buffer that you say ”is common”. You probably will have to use more than 5 secs on Google, as I definitely have, to try to give you detailed info from credible detailed sources .

”Meanwhile literally billions of vaccinated people are walking around the planet who are just fine ” Sure vaccines are less dangerous than for example arsenic. I dragged my 3 daughters to quite intensive vaccinations before we went to work in Africa. They are all still alive. So sure most people survive vaccination. Many years later I wounder about 1 of them getting child epilepsy and 2 getting asthma and wonder if there could have been a connection. Hard to know.

In the US in 1986 there were 11 childhood vaccination injections administered.
The same year 12.8% had childhood chronic illness and developmental disability prevalence

2017 there were 54 childhood vaccination injections administered.
To increase the health of the children, of course.

2017 childhood chronic illness and developmental disability prevalence had changed drastically.
Drastically worse! 54%
Of course you will be tempted to run the ”talking points”:
1) ”Diagnosis is so much better now, we’re just finding more cases.” (If you have been living under a rock or definitely not working in a school, you might say ”yeah, that explains it”)
2) or ”Observational studies don’t prove causation” That is true. BUT It CAN prove that ” more vaccines don’t necessarily mean that you will avoid worse health ”.

If Vary, or anyone else would like to read more about the placebo problem, read this:
https://tupomedia.se/…/ICAN-Reply-Vaccine-placebo-incl…
I haven’t had chance to check everything in it, but it does agree with the things that I HAVE checked. But should you find anything wrong in it, Please tell me, with relevant scientific sources , (not ”obviously wrong” OR ”a 5 sec Google would show”) and I will try to see that it is improved.

May we find ways to decrease childhood chronic illness and developmental disability prevalence ! (adding 43 vaccines, to quote Vary ”well…………not going very well is it.”

Skydda hjärnan, alzheimer, demens

Skall försöka samla saker om denna fråga här.

Dr. Neil Barnard pratar i denna TED talk om det:

Den har bra engelska undertexter. [Hur kan man sätta igång undertexter och omvandla till svenska.]

Han nämner detta försök [10:53 min] men visar inte diagrammet:

En grupp med mild kognitiv nedsättning och medel ålder 78 år gavs bara 1 pint (mindre än ½ liter) druvjuice om dagen i 3 månader. Placebo gruppens inlärningsförmåga stagnerade och minnet fortsatte försämras. Druvjuice gruppen hade signifikativa förbättringar på båda. (Även andra mörka bär som blåbär kan ha liknande påverkan)

I övrigt pratar han om att samma kost som ger åderförkalkning/förfettning => hjärt kärl sjukdom också leder till försämringar i hjärnan.

Vitamin C

Denna sida med Dr. Rhonda Patrick har en video (över 1 h) men också resultaten i text som går igenom väldigt mycket om vitamin C. Den sidan/videon rekommenderas! Den är på engelska.

Hon tar också upp hur det kan hjälpa mot bl a Alzheimer. Jag har klippt in en Google översättning av det avsnittet:

Vitamin C och neurodegenerativa störningar

Vitamin Cs antioxidantkapacitet kan vara fördelaktigt för att minska risken för neurodegenerativ sjukdom genom att minska oxidativ skada. Neurodegenerativa störningar innefattar ett brett spektrum av sjukdomar som orsakas av neurons progressiva död i de centrala och perifera nervsystemet. Vanliga neurodegenerativa sjukdomar inkluderar Alzheimers sjukdom, Parkinsons sjukdom, Huntingtons sjukdom och multipel skleros. Flera faktorer driver neurodegenerering, men oxidativ stress förmedlar och förbättrar de berörda processerna. [81] Två observationsstudier föreslog att Alzheimers sjukdom åtföljs av minskad antioxidantstatus och ökad oxidativ stress, vilket indikerar att oxidativ skada kan vara en bakom orsaken till neurodegenerering. [82] [83] En observationsstudie hos 72 patienter, varav 53 diagnostiserades med Alzheimers sjukdom och 19 som inte [fått Alzheimer diagnos], fann att trots liknande intag av vitamin C, minskade blodkoncentrationerna av C-vitamin i proportion till svårighetsgraden av det kognitiva försämringen. [ 84]

Dessutom kan vitamin C-intag skydda mot demens och kognitiv nedgång. [85] [86] Till exempel genomförde forskare i Nederländerna en 10-årig studie som involverade nästan 5 400 deltagare som var minst 55 år för att avgöra om kostintag av antioxidanter var relaterad till risken för att utveckla Alzheimers sjukdom. Efter en genomsnittlig uppföljning av sex år hade 146 av deltagarna diagnostiserats med Alzheimers sjukdom, och det genomsnittliga intaget av C-vitamin var cirka 122 milligram per dag. För varje 54 milligram ökning i vitamin C-intag var det en minskning med 18 procent av risken för Alzheimers sjukdom. I rökare var den skyddande effekten av C-vitamin ännu mer robust med en minskning av 35 procent i Alzheimers sjukdomsrisk för varje 54 milligramökning i vitamin C. [87]

Min korta förenkling:

Första studien fann att blodkoncentration av vitamin C minskade med stigande svårighetsgrad av Alzheimer. Som troligen innebär att kroppen använder upp (behöver) mer vitamin C vid alzheimer.

Andra studien fann ett samband att varje 54 milligram ökning av vitamin C intag gav en 18% minskning av risken att få Alzheimer. (det måste vara ”ränta på ränta” räkning, annars skulle en vanlig 500mg [=9,3*54] tablett ge 9,3*18% = 166% minskning! 18% minskning = 82% kvar; 0,82^9,3=15,9% kvar eller 84% minskning. Det var mest vitamin halt i kosten som mättes i studien,så det var nog inte så höga medelintag.)

Skolmedicins hyckleri

Från Wikipedia:

Termen skolmedicin används vanligen som kontrast till ovetenskapliga tekniker betecknade som folkmedicin, alternativ eller komplementär medicin. Bland utövare av alternativmedicin används ibland andra termer såsom allopatisk medicin, konventionell medicin eller modern, västerländsk medicin.

Den etablerade medicinen som stöds av våra skattekronor brukar kritisera alternativ som ovetenskapliga. ”inte bättre än placebo”. Man har vetat länge att folk blir bra även i placebo gruppen (som får en overksam medicin ofta sockerpiller eller saltvatten injektion). Den positiva utveckling i placebo gruppen, placebo effekten, är ofta mycket stor och man måste ha en ännu större effekt i den provade medicin gruppen för att ha påvisat dess verkan. Även ingrepp som kirurgi har vid provning visat sig inte vara bättre än placebo.

En viktig del i denna positiva placebo effekt är TRON att åtgärden kan hjälpa. Den gör det möjligt för patienten att koppla av. Minskad stress gör att kroppens möjlighet till självläkning ökar. (T ex: Man har mätt att immunförsvaret minskas när man känner stress.)

Det finns även andra saker än TRON, som skolmedicinen inte räknar med, som kan gömmas inom ”placebo effekt”. T ex kan patienter, utan doktorns vetskap, använda olika alternativ: meditation, vitaminer, örter, alternativ medicins olika varianter: homeopati, kolloidalt silver, mm. Och i ”riktiga medicinen gruppen händer det att folk inte tar ordinerade medicinen och deras förbättring (eller brist på biverkningar) tros av läkaren vara kopplade till medicinen! Och i placebo gruppen kan finnas folk som FÖRVÄNTAR sig dåliga biverkningar som får det! Mycket att sorterar ut när man skall bevisa något!

I vilket fall, är det ofta så, att doktorn dels inte vet vad problemet som patienten har är, och följaktligen vet inte vad som kan hjälpa, och ändå ger diagnos och ordinerar medicin, och det kan försvaras som etisk, då placebo effekten bör göra att det kan förväntas ofta hjälpa. Patienten under diagnos kan fråga vad symtomen orsakas av. Då kan ibland läkaren använda termer som ”idiopatisk” och ”iatrogen” som kan låta som läkaren vet mer än en själv, när läkaren kan så fina ord. ”Idiopatisk” betyder okänd orsak. ”Iatrogen” betyder orsakad av ett medicinsk ingrepp. Kan vara bra att kunna en del av ”fikonspråket”!

Samtidigt är det en hyckleri när de fördömer andra vårdformer som kan också dra fördel av placebo effekten.

Fire Panic

I have worked several years in East Africa. Most buildings there have iron bars covering windows to prevent thieves. When I first arrived in Tanzania, I felt like I was in prison when inside buildings. That was intensified when the first night my family was in Dar es Salaam, the lock to our bedroom jammed while we were inside. I had a hacksaw blade in my bags that got us out, but it took 15 – 30 minutes.

When I was working at Kibosho Girls Secondary School in Moshi, Tanzania 1994-95 there was a terrible fire at another school in the area and many (40-200?) girls died, locked in their dormitory. In the excited state this news caused, one night at our school a rumor got going that lead to some people being slightly injured in a panic to go out of their dorms.

I prepared the presentation below. We also followed up with role playing, particularly about the situation where a crowd tries to leave a building through an inward swinging door.

Emergency Behavior

What can we learn from Sunday night?

”We have nothing to fear but fear itself” Winston Churchill

Panic = extreme fear that prevents proper thinking

Though there was no fire, hundreds of pupils rushed out in the darkness and risked hurting themselves.

Panicked crowd

Many people in panic is very dangerous, even if there is no other danger. Many people have died or been hurt unnecessarily because of panic. They have been trampled under people’s feet or crushed against walls, fences or other hard things. Try to avoid being in or forming a tightly packed crowd. This usually only makes things more difficult and dangerous. If you do get caught in a crowd, try to keep some space in front of you by holding your arms out some in front of your stomach. You may be able to protect a child in this space also. Try to lift both feet often to prevent people standing on them and trampling you down. Try to be like a ball floating on stormy water. Try to calm people down, make them quiet, give them hope, give them something to laugh about. If the mass of people starts moving, try to avoid coming next to a wall or other non-movable object.

Darkness

If it is dark also the danger increases. What can I do in the dark? If you don’t know for sure there is an acute danger, it could be safest to just stay where you are. If you don’t stay where you are, but you have a torch (or anything that produces light, such as clock with light on dial), it can help you find your way. Use it sparingly (as little as possible) so you know there will be some left when you need it. If you have no light, feel your way, following the wall or things along the wall. If there could be bare electric wires, feel with the back of your hand or a knuckle of your fist (closed hand). (An open hand can grip an electric wire with an involuntary cramp so you can’t let go). Move calmly with small steps. Hurrying is dangerous!

Noise

If you are quiet, your hearing can help you ”see” because of the sound which bounces back from things. If the people make a lot of noise, it can increase the fear and prevent people from getting necessary information.

For example if everyone tries to get out of the dormitory at once and they are all pushing toward the door. If the door opens inward (as they do at present), no one will be able to open the door. If there is a lot of noise, the people at the back will not hear people in front tell them to back up.

Fire

Should a fire happen what should you do? The best thing is to put it out quickly it you can do that without danger. A fire needs 3 things: fuel, oxygen and heat. If you take away any one of these three there will be no fire.

How can I take away the fuel? If there is a leak of gas or kerosene, maybe I can turn it off. If a chair or dust bin is burning, maybe I can throw it outside of the building. If I can’t get it out (for example a bed), maybe I can move other burnable things farther away.

How can I keep oxygen away from the fire? Put water, sand, a heavy cloth over it. A cloth must be applied quickly, other wise it will just be more fuel. Use a fire extinguisher which sprays carbon dioxide, foam, other chemicals over the fire. Remember that you must hit the base of the fire, not the upper flames. Shut doors and windows. Water should NOT be used in these cases:

A fire in oil should not be hit with water. It can be like an explosion as the water becomes steam in the hot oil. Cover it! If it is in a pot, put on the lid or a metal plate.
If there is electricity, the electricity can follow the water back to the person throwing the water.

If a persons clothing is burning, it will burn most and spread fastest if he is standing up and the flames go around the face. If your clothing starts burning, roll around on the ground, if you don’t have water. Roll up in a blanket or other heavy cloth, with your head out. If another person’s clothes burn, help them in the same way.

One way of taking heat away from a fire is to beat it with a coat, branch, rug.
If you are in a building and there is (maybe) a fire going on, don’t open doors quickly. See first if the handle is hot. If the door opens toward you, put your foot against it as you open it a little bit. Don’t have your face near the opening, as flames might shoot out through the opening.

If you are in or must go through a room with smoke in it, keep your face close to the floor! Smokey air is very dangerous. Hot gases with smoke go up, so the cleanest air is near the floor. Besides being safer to breathe, you can see better. 3 inches from the floor you can sometimes see 10 meters across the room, while 1 foot up, you can’t see your finger 4 inches away.

Prepare

Whenever you get to a new place, it is good to look around. Find what different ways you can get out, where things to put out fires are, where lifebelts are on a boat, so you don’t waste time in an emergency. Tell the people in charge if something is missing, faulty or seems dangerous.

Look around your dormitory to see where there are electric outlets, lamps and other wiring. Especially, find where you can turn off the electricity. This can be good to know if the electricity itself is making a fire or giving a person a chock. It can also be good if you are going to put out a fire with water and don’t want to risk getting electrocuted (killed by electricity). Notice which ways doors open! Doors should go outwards in public buildings, but they don’t always. Do extra emergency doors work? Where are the keys?

If I must jump down, where would be a good spot? What should I avoid? What could I do to make it safer? Throw down mattresses to jump onto, tie together sheets to make a rope. Hang as low as possible before letting go. Have knees slightly bent as I land. REMEMBER Jumping is dangerous! Don’t jump until absolutely necessary.

If I have to leave the dormitory, where should we assemble? If this is not decided and followed it will be difficult to know if someone is inside or has just gone somewhere else. This can endanger other people that try to ”save” the missing person who is no longer inside.

Postscript

I think the contents are OK, The only addition I’d like to make when I look at it now (2009) is about a detail in smothering a fire in a person’s clothing. At my job in Sweden, CFL 2008, we had some exercises about this. It is important that a person doesn’t have fire around their head. Inhaling flames and smoke can do big damage. It is important for the person to lie down on the ground. If someone tries to smother a fire in someones clothes by putting on a blanket, rug or coat it can feel more natural to start from the feet and cover upwards, but this drives the flames up towards the head! So don’t do that! Start from just below the head and cover down towards the feet. This drives the flames away from the head.

Though I am interested and have tried to collect what I think is good advice, I am not an officially certified rescue trainer. Because this page is about life and death questions, I really hope you will point out anything that might be wrong or that should be added.

PPS

I have now been a member in training at Svenska Sjöräddningssälskapet, SSRS, (Swedish sea rescue organisation) 2018+2019. It is quite interesting. It includes some fire fighting, as well as first aid, boat handling, search and rescue at sea.