Dr. Lisa Bardack's recently released letter on Clinton's medical issues is informative: https://www.scribd.com/document/324034171/HRC-Physician-Letter#fullscreen&from_embed It tells us that Clinton was "up-to-date on all of immunizations, including Prevnar and Pneumovax”--two vaccines that are supposed to protect a person from an infection from pneumococcal bacteria. Yet Clinton fell victim to pneumonia anyway (bacterial, according to the letter). So Dr. Bardack prescribed a round of a fluoroquinolone antibiotic (Levaquin), the only class of antibiotic to carry a black box warning. Just in July the FDA expanded its warning from the earlier two issued in 2008 and 2013, now advising doctors and patients that these drugs “are associated with disabling and potentially permanent side effects of the tendons, muscles, joints, nerves, and central nervous system that can occur together in the same patient.” https://www.drugs.com/monograph/levofloxacin.html Among the CNS effects are confusion and hallucinations. The FDA notes that the risk of these adverse effects is further increased for people older than 60 and those receiving concomitant corticosteroids. Dr. Bardack mentions that earlier this year Clinton was treated with steroids and an unnamed antibiotic.
The CDC says in bold font, “The best way to prevent pneumococcal disease is by getting vaccinated.” http://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/about/prevention.html But apparently that isn't true. A meta-analysis of 22 trials examining the effectiveness of the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (e.g., Pneumovax), involving 101,507 participants, found that the vaccine “does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.” http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/1/48.full
The authors note upfront that “controlled clinical trials have produced conflicting results of the efficacy” of this vaccine, and their study indicates that this is due to the poor quality of the trials, namely inadequate allocation concealment or failure to blind participants and those assessing outcomes, what and how outcome is measured (e.g., presumptive, definitive or all-cause pneumonia, or all-cause mortality), and, in some cases, possibly selection bias. This meta-analysis found that higher-quality trials were more likely to show no benefit of the vaccine, in contrast to lower-quality trials. The authors cite one disturbing study showing that in immune-compromised patients the vaccine resulted in a substantial detrimental effect, where invasive pneumococcal diseases occurred in more than twice as many vaccinated patients as those given placebo.
I am unaware of any similar study of the trials testing effectiveness of the conjugate vaccine such as Prevnar, in which analyses were stratified by trial quality. Obviously Prevnar didn't prevent Clinton from getting pneumonia.
Given that even a single course of antibiotic disrupts the balance of a person's intestinal flora for months afterward, I suspect that antibiotics should be avoided except in cases of a life-threatening bacterial infection. I've never taken an antibiotic in my 56 years.
If it is of critical importance, how might a person (e.g., a 69-year-old running for President) avoid coming down with pneumonia? Obviously the treatment that Clinton has received is not the way.
I'm not at all convinced that the continual regimens of drugs that “exemplary medical care” entails make a person healthier.
The CDC says in bold font, “The best way to prevent pneumococcal disease is by getting vaccinated.” http://www.cdc.gov/pneumococcal/about/prevention.html But apparently that isn't true. A meta-analysis of 22 trials examining the effectiveness of the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (e.g., Pneumovax), involving 101,507 participants, found that the vaccine “does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.” http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/1/48.full
The authors note upfront that “controlled clinical trials have produced conflicting results of the efficacy” of this vaccine, and their study indicates that this is due to the poor quality of the trials, namely inadequate allocation concealment or failure to blind participants and those assessing outcomes, what and how outcome is measured (e.g., presumptive, definitive or all-cause pneumonia, or all-cause mortality), and, in some cases, possibly selection bias. This meta-analysis found that higher-quality trials were more likely to show no benefit of the vaccine, in contrast to lower-quality trials. The authors cite one disturbing study showing that in immune-compromised patients the vaccine resulted in a substantial detrimental effect, where invasive pneumococcal diseases occurred in more than twice as many vaccinated patients as those given placebo.
I am unaware of any similar study of the trials testing effectiveness of the conjugate vaccine such as Prevnar, in which analyses were stratified by trial quality. Obviously Prevnar didn't prevent Clinton from getting pneumonia.
Given that even a single course of antibiotic disrupts the balance of a person's intestinal flora for months afterward, I suspect that antibiotics should be avoided except in cases of a life-threatening bacterial infection. I've never taken an antibiotic in my 56 years.
If it is of critical importance, how might a person (e.g., a 69-year-old running for President) avoid coming down with pneumonia? Obviously the treatment that Clinton has received is not the way.
I'm not at all convinced that the continual regimens of drugs that “exemplary medical care” entails make a person healthier.
