Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 7 of 17
Some might find this paper from JAMA of interest. It has mortality rates by infectious disease from 1900 to 1996.
http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf
On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.
Vaccines were introduced for routine use by the general public in the following years.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines
Diphtheria: DTP mid 1940’s.
Pertussis: DTP mid 1940’s.
Measles: 1963
Polio: Salk inactivated 1955, Sabin oral live 1962.
Now you can mentally draw vertical lines on that graph to mark when each vaccine was introduced.
As you can see, studying the pattern of death rates of these diseases before and after the vaccines does not conclusively tell us how many lives the vaccines saved.
Yes, people died more back then from these diseases than they do now.
But in context of the big picture, it is less clear whether those people would have been saved anyway, even with or without vaccines.
I'm not saying vaccines didn't save any lives. I am saying it is unclear just how many lives vaccines DID save. Not all lives saved can be attributed to the vaccines.
So a straight comparison of death rates before vaccines (implying those lives were saved by vaccines) and death rates because of vaccines (which is contentious in and of itself) is not really possible with the limited data we have.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.
There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.
Primum non nocere. First do no harm.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."
Hello,
I am confused on this point.
Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?
Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.
And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.
So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, because it has no effects whatsoever.
no one has complained of injury from it [homeopathy]
Quote:If homeopathy were as effective as almost anything else in modern medical armamentarium (vaccines, antibiotics, antivirals and anti-retrovirals, etc.) then we would all be using it instead.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll go on this point by point down the line, if you will...
Siggy
Quote:
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?
Damn good point that, plus the notion of "all of the above" being a factor collectively rather than individually - which is one reason for my interest, again we don't KNOW, and we damn well should at least take steps to find out.
Re: Pubmed - always seem to find ourselves there, don't we ?
For all it's perils the internet is a wonderful thing, it is...
Yeah, the Adjuvants issue needs more focus, and I took am annoyed at the mudslinging taking precedence over proper freakin research which done correctly would in short order at LEAST give us a minimally effective screening system for those most likely to have bad reactions - nothin perfect, but at least a basis to start upon, yes ?
Quote:
There ARE reasons not to vaccinate some children. A family or even individual history of adverse reactions should be enough to allow exceptions.
It should, the damn MMR nearly killed me - but even so we should explore other options for those individuals which may work with less risk, and we haven't done that either cause of the kind of black/white all or nothing thinking in this which bothers me so much.
Re: Risk Assessment and Choice.
Comes down to it, the instant you start making that choice for others, you've crossed the moral event horizon, cause you're talking about a KNOWN risk, one created BY taking a specific action (vaccination) with deliberate intent - versus an unknown risk potentially created by inaction (not vaccinating).
If I decide to play russian roulette, the action of picking up the revolver and pulling the trigger is a deliberate, intentional action, if I do nothing the risk from that action is not present and never will be.
Yes, I might then get hit by a truck, struck by lightning, or fall down the steps, but those events are not deliberately, personally created risks.
Therefore the CHOICE should always, always come down to the individual, cause the way I see it anything less is someone ELSE picking up that revolver and pointing it at me, while denying any personal responsibility which follows from inflicting a risk upon others without their consent.
Sure, life is a hard place sometimes, but nothing within it gives anyone ELSE the right to make my medical decisions for me, and the moment we go down that path regardless of what contrived excuse is used to justify it - imma dig in my heels and fight back, cause I know what lies at the bottom of THAT slope.
Byte
You've nailed the principle as well, although in less detail, I myself DO consider it a false dilemma, especially since we have capabilities TO do better and do not use them cause of a certain scientific interia I find apalling, to the point where a lot of it seems more faith and religion than science cause every time an advance or new data calls it into question, it's often dismissed out of hand, and that offends me on a scientific level.
CTS
Quote:
Yes people could be screened. Right now, they aren't doing any research on that. No REAL research, that is. If they did, we could start screening. First for one thing, then another.
But that requires 1) Big Pharma to acknowledge there IS potential for complications, far greater than they are already acknowledging right now, and 2) Big Pharma to be willing to part with the profit lost from decreased sales.
#1 implies liability for the complications which already occurred.
#2 equals less money.
Why should Big Pharma take the high road, when the current low road is working just fine? It is so much easier and cheaper and more profitable to just ride the rhetoric Siggy is preaching. They have legal immunity from most claims of damage. Zero liability. Forced sales. NearNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So CTS, looking at the link that you provided, which you say is unclear about the effect of vaccination, the charts include
Quote:The charts also include "tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, typhoid fever, dysentery, syphilis ("syphilis and its sequelae"), and AIDS".
Influenza and pneumonia constituted the largest single disease category, averaging 44.4% of all infectious disease death
Hmmm. Of those, how many are actually vaccinated against? Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!
Quote:So the reduction in mortality is related to the introduction of antibiotics (another conspiracy, I'm sure!). Many of the epidemic diseases are bacterial, but for the viral diseases (measles, mumps, smallpox, polio etc) there is either good medical support (oxygen, fluids, etc) or vaccination.
The disease categories that contributed most to this decline were pneumonia and influenza, which fell sharply from 1938 to 1950 and subsequently leveled off for several years, and tuberculosis, which fell abruptly from 1945 to 1954 and continued to fall until the mid 1980s. These declines coincided with the first clinical use of sulfonamides (1935), antibiotics (penicillin in 1941 and streptomycin in 1943), and antimycobacterials (streptomycin, first used against tuberculosis in 1944, para-aminosalicylic acid in 1944, and isoniazid in 1952).
When they do address vaccine specifically, they say:
Quote:
polio mortality fell only marginally during the first 4 decades and then increased until the first polio vaccine was licensed in 1955.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, measles and polio specifically
Pertussis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.
There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.
Primum non nocere. First do no harm.
That is because they contain no active properties, other than what is to be found in water. They do no harm, because they don't do anything.
The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments. As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness. I still maintain it'd dangerous in the hands of some people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, we seem to be trying to out do one another with interminally long posts and I am almost through with this, just from running out of things to say.
I put homeopathy in a different category to naturopathy. No one with any wit would poo poo willow bark as not having healing properties, seeing as how aspirin is made from it. Empirical testing has been done on a number of popularly used plants which have found them to possess the useful medicinal properties observed. I have no issue with this. St John's Wort has come out extremely well in clinical trial as an effective use for depression, passiofloura assists with sleeping, as does valerian. Peppermint tea is indeed a wonderful cure for indigestion, senna for constipation. I have used all of these.
I think that mainstream medicine has given us much to be thankful for, including vaccination. But I also see that it doens't do so well on the wellbeing aspect of health. It tends to focus on fixing illness, rather than looking at people's general wellbeing and I believe that is why people often tend to turn to alternative medicines. I guess there is also a sense of medical assistance being more of a sausage factory rather than focusing on individuals needs. I've been lucky enough to have local doctors who are not like that.
I also have some concerns about how across the counter herbal medicines are produced whatgoes into them, how they are handled, what they are mixed with. There tends to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability for this type of medicine. I say this having experience of packaging spirolina in what was basically a terribly unhigenic sweat shop.
I also dispute the claim that herbal is gentler or safer. Some plants can kill you if ingested, some can give you organ failure, some bring on psychosis. Nature is not nor ever has been gentle. She's a freaking bitch quite frankly. Some herbal remedies (such as St John's wort) can interfere with other medicines such as the pill or tablets people take for heart problems.
But no I have no really issue with herbal remedies, as long as they are not making bs claims of doing something they do not or prevent people from choosing treatments which may ultimately save or extend their lives - a la steve jobs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-
treatment-regrets/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to add that we also had an outbreak of whooping cough, largely due to the number of people in this area who are unvaccinated. And we all got it. My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly. However, the risk factors are for babies who tend to die if they get a bad dose, and that is what you immunise for.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME