West TX Children Treated for Vitamin A Toxicity Along Side Measles

[ThatRobGuy]

My point is, all of the cited studies are referring to children populations in 3rd world countries. Vitamin A deficiency (or inadequacy) is not an issue in the United States.

Hence, why is the RFK promoting it on Fox News to an American audience?

During a March 4 interview on Fox News, Kennedy suggested that therapies such as the use of cod liver oil — which contains vitamins A and D — were "working" in treating measles patients.

Actually, the link I provided was referring to the US population

43% of US residents ages 4+ are Vitamin A inadequate (not to be confused for deficient)

Obviously, it doesn't dive into the granularity of how much they're inadequate, but none the less.


Furthermore, RFK was getting that information from the WHO (which is not a US/Trump "captured" organization)

Measles

Measles remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine.

www.who.int

Measles – Japan

www.who.int

Vitamin A should be administered to all children diagnosed with measles. regardless of their country of residence. This restores low vitamin A levels that occur even in well-nourished children


The WHO recommends vitamin A treatment for all children with measles, regardless of their vitamin A status or where they live. This is because:

• Even in developed countries, measles can cause temporary drops in vitamin A levels.
• Complications like pneumonia, diarrhea, and blindness are linked to low vitamin A levels during infection.
• The benefits of supplementation outweigh the risks, even if the child isn’t chronically deficient.

So, as I noted, the statements by RFK on this particular one aren't wildly off-base.


Obviously, supportive care is part of the healthcare equation. For the people earlier in the thread who were suggesting that he just say "get vaccinated", and cut it off there seem to have a rather narrow view of the situation.

Is there recommendation that if an unvaccinated child catches it, the parents develop a time machine, and go back 5 years and get them vaccinated in the past?


That'd be like critiquing someone for providing supportive care tips for when someone catches the flu on the basis of "he should've just said get the flu shot, and said nothing more"

 

[sfs]

So, as I noted, the statements by RFK on this particular one aren't wildly off-base.

On the other hand, this more recent statement by RFK *was* wildly off-base: “It is a single antigen vaccine. And for respiratory illnesses, the single antigen vaccines have never worked.” The guy shouldn't be anywhere near anything to do with public health.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

On the other hand, this more recent statement by RFK *was* wildly off-base: “It is a single antigen vaccine. And for respiratory illnesses, the single antigen vaccines have never worked.” The guy shouldn't be anywhere near anything to do with public health.

I would concur that "never worked" is a misleading statement.

The degree of efficacy can certainly be questioned.

To give the benefit of the doubt, he could've been referring to the fact that there have been critiques of subunit vaccines (often a single antigen), suggesting that these can be less immunogenic than whole-virus or whole-cell vaccines. Or the fact that for viruses that mutate rapidly (like influenza) single antigen vaccines have had rather limited success. Thus the reason they don't use single-antigen vaccines for the yearly flu shots. It's typically 2 antigens per strain (hemaglutin?...and I forget the name of the other one...I wasn't a medical major lol), and either 3 or 4 strains in in the jab. So, in essence, the yearly flu shots we all get typically have 6-8 antigens in total (and even those have very limited efficacy certain flu seasons)

Given that his comments were in reference to questions about giving full approval to Novavax's covid vaccine, I don't see his "flub" as earth shattering here.

The existing covid vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) are also technically single antigen...they only target the spike protein.

Early on they demonstrated a high level of efficacy, but once all of the "mutations of the month" started popping up, they're basically at a point where they only last about 3-4 months and then fall off a cliff.



The part I guess I object to in all of this, is that they're holding him to a higher purity standard or rigor than they'd hold anyone else to, simply because of his pre-existing stance on vaccines...and seemingly never want to give any credit to the things he's actually right about.


But I'm sure given your line of work, you'll probably have some fact-checks you can lay down on what I just said lol

 

[sfs]

Early on they demonstrated a high level of efficacy, but once all of the "mutations of the month" started popping up, they're basically at a point where they only last about 3-4 months and then fall off a cliff.

They fall off a cliff when it comes to preventing infection, but they retained a good deal of effectiveness in preventing severe disease and death well into the Variant of Concern era. (Probably still do, but it's hard to do studies now.) Note, by the way that you've just demonstrated that his statement was false.

The part I guess I object to in all of this, is that they're holding him to a higher purity standard or rigor than they'd hold anyone else to, simply because of his pre-existing stance on vaccines

Yes, the fact that he has a decade-long history of saying wildly inaccurate and highly dangerous things about vaccines does cause us to scrutinized his current statements on the subject. You think we should pretend he doesn't have that history, or that he didn't recently appoint a completely unqualified anti-vaccine person to carry out a study of a connection between vaccines and autism?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, the fact that he has a decade-long history of saying wildly inaccurate and highly dangerous things about vaccines does cause us to scrutinized his current statements on the subject. You think we should pretend he doesn't have that history, or that he didn't recently appoint a completely unqualified anti-vaccine person to carry out a study of a connection between vaccines and autism?

No, I'm not suggesting that anyone pretend that the character flaw in that regard doesn't exist, simply that it be not merely be used as an excuse to pounce or put his statements under magnifying glass that others wouldn't be subjected to....simply due to that one particular form of quackery being "more triggering" for people because of covid.


Just to put that within some context:
All 50 states' boards of health license and accredit chiropractic (which is a pseudoscience)
Over 20 states do the same for Naturopaths and Homeopaths (also pseudoscience)

Where's the widespread backlash for those things?

California, Oregon, and Washington State have the highest concentration of "alternative medicine" clinics/practices in the entire country.

UCSF and UCLA university medical centers are offering acupuncture, naturopathic, chiropractic, and Ayurvedic services (all of which make false claims about "immunity boosting")

--and ironically enough, "practitioners" of those pseudosciences are (collectively) bigger purveyors of misinformation than RFK.

Yet, RFK mentioning Vitamin A is the thing that people zeroed in on.

Recommending Vitamin A supplementation amid a measles infection is far less "quacky" (in fact, it's not quacky at all according to the WHO) than suggesting that arranging specific gems on someone's back in a certain order, while massaging their scalp with an oil concoction somehow "unlocks the body's inner self-healing power", yet RFK gets bashed for the former, and nobody talks about the latter.

 

[wing2000]

43% of US residents ages 4+ are Vitamin A inadequate (not to be confused for deficient)

...which can easily be resolved without taking supplements. I hear RFK is proponent of healthy eating. Maybe he should stick to "Eat your carrots".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...which can easily be resolved without taking supplements. I hear RFK is proponent of healthy eating. Maybe he should stick to "Eat your carrots".

Even if someone does have a well-balanced diet, the recommendation from the WHO publication is:


Vitamin A should be administered to all children diagnosed with measles. regardless of their country of residence. This restores low vitamin A levels that occur even in well-nourished children


The WHO recommends vitamin A treatment for all children with measles, regardless of their vitamin A status or where they live. This is because:

• Even in developed countries, measles can cause temporary drops in vitamin A levels.
• Complications like pneumonia, diarrhea, and blindness are linked to low vitamin A levels during infection.
• The benefits of supplementation outweigh the risks, even if the child isn’t chronically deficient.

In this instance, it seems as if RFK's press release I linked earlier was perfectly sound.

It mentioned vaccines first, and down toward the bottom, linked the WHO's guidance on vitamin A recommendations for people who do get infected.

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/measles-outbreak-call-to-action-for-all-of-us.html

The press release touts the benefits of vaccination at least a dozen times and mentions the WHO's Vitamin A recommendation once. I don't necessarily see any issues with his press release.

 

[wing2000]

The press release touts the benefits of vaccination at least a dozen times and mentions the WHO's Vitamin A recommendation once. I don't necessarily see any issues with his press release.

Nor do I. However, I doubt the American public reads press releases with the same attention as you do.

 

[Say it aint so]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. falsely claims measles vaccine protection 'wanes very quickly'​

Kennedy also suggested that measles cases are inevitable in the United States because of ebbing immunity from vaccines — a notion doctors say is false. ​

​

“We’re always going to have measles, no matter what happens, as the vaccine wanes very quickly,” Kennedy said. ​

​

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine offer lifelong protection. That’s because the vaccine stimulates the production of memory cells, he said, which can recognize the virus over a lifetime.​

​

“We eliminated measles from this country. That could never happen if immunity waned,” said Offit, who serves on an independent vaccine advisory committee for the FDA.​

Again, Kennedy should STOP advising on matters he has no clue about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again, Kennedy should STOP advising on matters he has no clue about.

Are you willing to apply that standard more broadly?

Meaning, if there's any area in which the head of a health department has knowledge gaps, or has espoused incorrect information, they're ineligible for the role?

If that's the case, we may never have a head of HHS ever again.


Clearly many of our public health leaders over the past several decades have no clue what they're talking about in terms of diet/nutrition/food additives, if they did, we wouldn't be grappling with sky high obesity rates (which, obesity is a much greater threat in terms of morality and hospitalization than measles ever was -- even prior to any measles vaccine existing, and controlling for population sizes, measles never even scratched the surface of the healthcare burden that modern obesity does)



Ideally, we could have someone who is sound on both topics, but that ship has sailed, every president for the last 30 years has had ample opportunity to appoint a person who is pro-vaccine, and wants to tackle our issues pertaining to food, but they've neglected to do so.

 

[Say it aint so]

Are you willing to apply that standard more broadly?

Meaning, if there's any area in which the head of a health department has knowledge gaps, or has espoused incorrect information, they're ineligible for the role?

If that's the case, we may never have a head of HHS ever again.


Clearly many of our public health leaders over the past several decades have no clue what they're talking about in terms of diet/nutrition/food additives, if they did, we wouldn't be grappling with sky high obesity rates (which, obesity is a much greater threat in terms of morality and hospitalization than measles ever was -- even prior to any measles vaccine existing, and controlling for population sizes, measles never even scratched the surface of the healthcare burden that modern obesity does)



Ideally, we could have someone who is sound on both topics, but that ship has sailed, every president for the last 30 years has had ample opportunity to appoint a person who is pro-vaccine, and wants to tackle our issues pertaining to food, but they've neglected to do so.

Yes, if they are going around holding wacky views like this,“Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” They shouldn't even be admitted into the lobby of the HHS building.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, if they are going around holding wacky views like this,“Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” They shouldn't even be admitted into the lobby of the HHS building.

As opposed to what?

"AIDS is airborne plus you can also catch it from surface contact with household objects" (thanks public health experts for making a bunch of gay people die alone, scared, with their family and friends being afraid to be in the same room as them)
"Eat a diet that's rich in grains to maintain a healthy weight, despite the fact that grains are what we feed other mammals to fatten them up"
"Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad"
"We see no evidence that opioids are likely to be any more addictive than any other painkillers"
"We need to mass vaccinate against swine flu (1976), oops, the pandemic never materialized and now a bunch of you have GBS" (that's the original event that was the birth of the modern anti-vaxx movement)
"We need to reduce salt intake" (which was based on flimsy science, and actually had consequences when some elderly folks ended up dropping dead from low electrolyte levels during heatwaves)
"We see no evidence that BPA is an endocrine disruptor"
20 years' worth of "DDT pesticides are harmless to humans" talking points
"Aspartame is perfectly safe for human consumption"


Not to mention, a decades long track record of treating various pseudosciences as "real healthcare".

Any medical institution that sanctions or even gives deference to Chiropractic, Acupuncture, Naturopathic, Homeopathic, and Ayurvedic "care" (which as I noted earlier, includes major university medical centers) is engaging in a level of quackery that's on-par with RFK's stance on vaccines.


Can we stop pretending that his brand of quackery is unique or "special" simply because he aligned with a politician that people don't like?

People aren't bashing RFK's stance because they have a legitimate interest in science or public health, if they were, then I'd expect them to be absolutely livid that UCLA medical center is offering the aforementioned forms of quackery, and that chiropractic is recognized as a legitimate form of care in all 50 states.

They're targeting his positions that are "politically convenient".

 

[loveofourlord]

oh great....one of the guys RFK is working with, thinks an asthma enhalerr cures covid, and sugests it for measels....it can act as an immune suppresent, and he's toting this guy as a miracle worker.

 

[Say it aint so]

As opposed to what?

"AIDS is airborne plus you can also catch it from surface contact with household objects" (thanks public health experts for making a bunch of gay people die alone, scared, with their family and friends being afraid to be in the same room as them)
"Eat a diet that's rich in grains to maintain a healthy weight, despite the fact that grains are what we feed other mammals to fatten them up"
"Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad"
"We see no evidence that opioids are likely to be any more addictive than any other painkillers"
"We need to mass vaccinate against swine flu (1976), oops, the pandemic never materialized and now a bunch of you have GBS" (that's the original event that was the birth of the modern anti-vaxx movement)
"We need to reduce salt intake" (which was based on flimsy science, and actually had consequences when some elderly folks ended up dropping dead from low electrolyte levels during heatwaves)
"We see no evidence that BPA is an endocrine disruptor"
20 years' worth of "DDT pesticides are harmless to humans" talking points
"Aspartame is perfectly safe for human consumption"


Not to mention, a decades long track record of treating various pseudosciences as "real healthcare".

Any medical institution that sanctions or even gives deference to Chiropractic, Acupuncture, Naturopathic, Homeopathic, and Ayurvedic "care" (which as I noted earlier, includes major university medical centers) is engaging in a level of quackery that's on-par with RFK's stance on vaccines.


Can we stop pretending that his brand of quackery is unique or "special" simply because he aligned with a politician that people don't like?

People aren't bashing RFK's stance because they have a legitimate interest in science or public health, if they were, then I'd expect them to be absolutely livid that UCLA medical center is offering the aforementioned forms of quackery, and that chiropractic is recognized as a legitimate form of care in all 50 states.

They're targeting his positions that are "politically convenient".

Wait. What?

 

[durangodawood]

....People aren't bashing RFK's stance because they have a legitimate interest in science or public health, if they were, then I'd expect them to be absolutely livid that UCLA medical center is offering the aforementioned forms of quackery, and that chiropractic is recognized as a legitimate form of care in all 50 states.

They're targeting his positions that are "politically convenient".

Its because he's the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. The position is as prominent as it gets in this field.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its because he's the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. The position is as prominent as it gets in this field.

It's an administrative position, which doesn't necessarily have to be filled by a doctor

For example, many people who have the equivalent role at the state level don't have an MD, nor do several Hospital Administrators for major Hospital systems. For instance, University Hospitals here in NE Ohio is one of the top ranked hospital systems in the world. Their Chief Administrative Officer is a guy with a Law Degree and a minor in communications whose previous job was a Sr. VP for DHL.

If you look at the list of predecessors, many have been lawyers, not doctors.

United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Many who hold the state-level equivalent positions haven't been doctors either.

And furthermore, some Democratic governors have even appointed state heads of health that have overtly supported psuedoscience.

Prior to covid:
For example, California has promoted alternative quackery and codified it into law:
California Senate Bill SB 577 has profound implications for the practice of alternative forms of healthcare in California. SB 577 enables alternative and complementary health care practitioners (including, but not limited to, Reiki, Energy Healing and Spiritual Counseling) to provide and advertise legally.

Oregon uses Medicaid funds for things like naturopathy and homeopathy

Mass. had state-funded wellness programs incorporating Reiki and "energy healing"

Washington state has a long history of state-approved quackery (they're one of the few states that'll actually allow alternative practitioners to prescribe medications)

(it's the alternative medicine 'practitioners' that are often the biggest purveyors of anti-vaccine sentiments)


So, if someone has a staunch position that pseudoscience doesn't belong in any legitimate public health setting, then that's fine, I get it. But it seems like the general public has pretty much ignored it all over the place for 40 years, and now wants to put a magnifying glass on this one particular instance of it.

So how its coming across, is that people were willing to tolerate it when it was the "hippy dippy" people doing it, or if it was giving a nod to some nonsense just because it was rooted in "Eastern cultural traditions", but now that it's coming from a conservative base, all of the sudden it's a deal breaker.

 

[durangodawood]

It's an administrative position, which doesn't necessarily have to be filled by a doctor

For example, many people who have the equivalent role at the state level don't have an MD, nor do several Hospital Administrators for major Hospital systems. For instance, University Hospitals here in NE Ohio is one of the top ranked hospital systems in the world. Their Chief Administrative Officer is a guy with a Law Degree and a minor in communications whose previous job was a Sr. VP for DHL.

If you look at the list of predecessors, many have been lawyers, not doctors.

United States Secretary of Health and Human Services - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Many who hold the state-level equivalent positions haven't been doctors either.

And furthermore, some Democratic governors have even appointed state heads of health that have overtly supported psuedoscience.

Prior to covid:
For example, California has promoted alternative quackery and codified it into law:
California Senate Bill SB 577 has profound implications for the practice of alternative forms of healthcare in California. SB 577 enables alternative and complementary health care practitioners (including, but not limited to, Reiki, Energy Healing and Spiritual Counseling) to provide and advertise legally.

Oregon uses Medicaid funds for things like naturopathy and homeopathy

Mass. had state-funded wellness programs incorporating Reiki and "energy healing"

Washington state has a long history of state-approved quackery (they're one of the few states that'll actually allow alternative practitioners to prescribe medications)

(it's the alternative medicine 'practitioners' that are often the biggest purveyors of anti-vaccine sentiments)


So, if someone has a staunch position that pseudoscience doesn't belong in any legitimate public health setting, then that's fine, I get it. But it seems like the general public has pretty much ignored it all over the place for 40 years, and now wants to put a magnifying glass on this one particular instance of it.

He wasnt put there for his administrative savvy.

He's there because lots of people prefer how he "vibes" his way though medical matters.

As for the various states, most of that doesnt cross people radars the way national leaders do. Nor do they seem to push quackery re highly communicable diseases.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He wasnt put there for his administrative savvy.

He's there because lots of people prefer how he "vibes" his way though medical matters.

I think he gained support due to how he speaks to the issues food/diet/nutrition.

Based on polling, among people who don't necessarily agree with his views on vaccines... the following aspects resonated with a lot of people.

• Focus on Chronic Disease: Kennedy's emphasis on addressing chronic health issues, such as obesity and diabetes, resonated with large segments of the population concerned about these widespread problems.
• Critique of Processed Foods: His critiques of processed foods and calls for better nutrition policies appealed to those advocating for healthier food systems.
• Distrust in Health Institutions: Some supporters shared a general skepticism toward established health organizations and appreciated Kennedy's calls for increased transparency and reform within agencies like the FDA and CDC.

I'd be in that cohort, I've stated numerous times that I think he's wrong about vaccines. But he does speak to the aforementioned issues in ways that no other high-profile person has that I'm aware of. Michelle Obama dipped her toes in the water a bit on the nutrition front...but certainly not to the same degree.

I think people need to get passed the mindset of "because a person is really wrong about one thing, that means they can't be right about anything else"

 

[durangodawood]

I think he gained support due to how he speaks to the issues food/diet/nutrition.

Based on polling, among people who don't necessarily agree with his views on vaccines... the following aspects resonated with a lot of people.

• Focus on Chronic Disease: Kennedy's emphasis on addressing chronic health issues, such as obesity and diabetes, resonated with large segments of the population concerned about these widespread problems.
• Critique of Processed Foods: His critiques of processed foods and calls for better nutrition policies appealed to those advocating for healthier food systems.
• Distrust in Health Institutions: Some supporters shared a general skepticism toward established health organizations and appreciated Kennedy's calls for increased transparency and reform within agencies like the FDA and CDC.

I'd be in that cohort, I've stated numerous times that I think he's wrong about vaccines. But he does speak to the aforementioned issues in ways that no other high-profile person has that I'm aware of. Michelle Obama dipped her toes in the water a bit on the nutrition front...but certainly not to the same degree.

I think people need to get passed the mindset of "because a person is really wrong about one thing, that means they can't be right about anything else"

Highly communicable diseases are really important. No one who is so wrong about that matter should be administrating public health ever.

As for diet and chronic disease, its not like RFK is a "voice in the wilderness". Theres countless other capable people on the right side of that issue who arent so wrong on other important matters.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As for diet and chronic disease, its not like RFK is a "voice in the wilderness". Theres countless other capable people on the right side of that issue who arent so wrong on other important matters.

Are any of them as high-profile, and have any presidents you're aware of in the last 40 years tapped such folks for the position?