Modern medicine is just amazing

[Deleted]

Link?

[flatandy]

You mean like the stuff where 500 people in the US every year died of measles pre-vaccine and zero people died in a fully vaccinated population?

Or where 2.3 million people died every year globally in 1980, and in 2014 73,000 people died from it (despite the global population nearly doubling). Are you suggesting that hunger and poverty have reduced that much?

[Deleted]

Thanks but I wanted a link to back up the extraordinary statement that 'middle class kids' (whatever that may be) in earlier times before vaccination were just as likely to die (of disease) as starving kids living in rat-infested hovels. It may be true. I just don't believe it.

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2019 14:11:09 GMT flatandy said:

You mean like the stuff where 500 people in the US every year died of measles pre-vaccine and zero people died in a fully vaccinated population?

Or where 2.3 million people died every year globally in 1980, and in 2014 73,000 people died from it (despite the global population nearly doubling). Are you suggesting that hunger and poverty have reduced that much?

Interesting, that. 0ne in ten thousand cases of measles ended in death.

And. "The risk of death among those infected is about 0.2%, but may be up to 10% in people with malnutrition. So it sort of answers my question.

[voice]

The paper uses a range of sources — parish registers, family histories, bills of mortality, local censuses, marriage licences, apprenticeship indentures, and wills — to document the history of mortality of London in the period 1538–1850. The main conclusions of the research are as follows:

1. Infant and child mortality more than doubled between the sixteenth and the middle of the eighteenth century in both wealthy and non-wealthy families.

2. Mortality peaked in the middle of the eighteenth century at a very high level, with nearly two-thirds of all children — rich and poor — dying by their fifth birthday.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/174963207X227578?journalCode=yldn20

Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States
Sandra W. Roush, MT, MPH; Trudy V. Murphy, MD; and the Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA. 2007;298(18):2155-2163. doi:10.1001/jama.298.18.2155
Abstract
Context National vaccine recommendations in the United States target an increasing number of vaccine-preventable diseases for reduction, elimination, or eradication.

Objective To compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in place prior to 2005.

Design, Setting, and Participants For the United States, prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative historical data from primary sources and were compared to the most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.

Main Outcome Measures Number of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or reporting.

Results A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.

Conclusions The number of cases of most vaccine-preventable diseases is at an all-time low; hospitalizations and deaths have also shown striking decreases.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/209448

[voice]

Dec 7, 2019 17:34:14 GMT @oneofthelessergods said:

Dec 7, 2019 14:11:09 GMT flatandy said:

You mean like the stuff where 500 people in the US every year died of measles pre-vaccine and zero people died in a fully vaccinated population?

Or where 2.3 million people died every year globally in 1980, and in 2014 73,000 people died from it (despite the global population nearly doubling). Are you suggesting that hunger and poverty have reduced that much?

Interesting, that. 0ne in ten thousand cases of measles ended in death.

And. "The risk of death among those infected is about 0.2%, but may be up to 10% in people with malnutrition. So it sort of answers my question.

though if the malnourished child has the vaccine the risk of death is negligible.

What is not supported by the article is your assertion better good diet was the cause of a decline on infant mortality rates by up to 98%, vaccines were the reason infant mortality rates dropped in all populations, rich and poor, well fed or not. Now I'm sure the next trope you are going to roll out is indoor plumbing and better hygiene, this is also patent bollox, but as the main thing you are immune to are facts I doubt you're gonna accept that any more than you do all the other evidence thats been presented to you.

[Deleted]

You started off quite sensibly but rapidly deteriorated as usual. I'm interested in natural immunity and the effect vaccination programs have on it. That's all. Bit early for any real evidence of any kind, and the statistics never stand up - even the links Andy offered appear contradictory about numbers of deaths; but then there's no clarification of which outbreaks and where; it's like most stuff we argue about here - open to conjecture, which helps to liven up the place I suppose.

[voice]

natural immunity vs vaccinations is a nonsensical comparison, as you only get natural immunity from surviving the disease, but really immunity is immunity, there is no difference between the immunity friom a vaccines and the one from having survived through infection, the only difference in with a vaccine you will not get infected in the first place so not face morbidity or mortality, where as in cases of infection your chances of death are greater and in some cases massively greater.

I get it you don't really understand how all this works, but that's no excuse for not accepting facts and evidence that prove you wrong consistency.

[flatandy]

I can’t even follow OOTLG’s argument now. He seems to think that decent nutrition means that nobody gets measles, or that the only potential problem from measles is dying from it, or that people who don’t get measles have some magical natural immunity, or that it’s OK for 2.3 million people a year to die because it will make the rest of the herd stronger despite there being no evidence of this.

[perrykneeham]

Our experience with OOTLG closely resembles my experiments in teaching my dogs to type. I've shown them how it's done, demonstrated the keyboard and explained the processes.

Nothing.

[voice]

That and he continues to labour under Malthusian theories of population management, he's said several times the way to save people and the planet is to let billions die or be culled. Add to that this weird obsession hes got that vaccines make the population weaker and best to have millions die of preventable diseases as a way to strengthen the gene pool.

Its totally bonkers, buts where we are in the post truth world I suppose.

[Deleted]

Interesting that this series of posts has illustrated the flaws which exist in the human experience. The posts themselves (immediately above) show, 1) Voice. A continuing refusal to comprehend the issue (obstinacy and self-delusion), 2) Andy. The need to build a false case against the issue as a form of defence and to drag the discussion into a 4th person objective (we) which indicates weakness of argument (sophistry and self-doubt), and 3) Baloo. The immature attempt to ingratiate himself with the gang is in itself more amusing than the post (stupidity and mob mentality). Finally 4) Voice again. The old old Malthusian thing learned at uni usually dragged up as a last resort but now superceded by accusations of 'post truth'.

A bunch of wankers.

[perrykneeham]

Calm down, dear!

[flatandy]

2) Andy. The need to build a false case against the issue as a form of defence and to drag the discussion into a 4th person objective (we) which indicates weakness of argument (sophistry and self-doubt),

Having already rebutted three different arguments of yours and finding that your arguments shift and change with the winds and go back to the previously rebutted ones like a game of whack-a-mole, I decided that all I had left was mocking your ridiculous debating technique. It's very similar to the climate-change-deniers.

[Deleted]

Guacamole?

I find the subject interesting because it's in a constant state of change and has many facets which defy carved-in-stone assertions. It's endlessly discussable, and entrenched views are inevitably finally exposed as dubious as they are founded on uncertain statistics and theories. And anyone can google any proof they want that fits their argument. This for example.

[voice]

See you post above is why you're never going to get how science and modern medicine works. What you see as a weakness is in fact why modern medicine is amazing. SBM does not have carved in stones assertions as woo relies on, I mean we've proved homeopathy is nonsense, water does not have a selective memory nor does a super diluted cause of a condition cure that condition, there is no such thing as chackras, subloxones, and crystals don't have healing energy, yet despite an overwhelming canon of evidence showing this, the woosters and snake oil salesmen still peddle their health fraud.

SBM on the other hand is only as good as the latest evidence and if new evidence comes along it changes, SBM is about constantly questioning what we do and why we do it, and just cos we get a better understanding of a condition and change how we treat it it does not mean the last understanding was dubious and more than the new understanding will be dubious if new evidence comes along and we change treatment again. And some things haven't changed for a long time simply because what we do works, saves lives and reduces suffering and no new research has proven otherwise. Treatment of MI has changed drasticly in the last 100 years - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24062883 - and no doubt will continue to do so. Also SBM does not rely on Google searches for articles that back up what they want to hear, look to woosters and the AV cult for that kind of nonsense. We reply on robust peer review processes, its amazing sometimes how quickly some new idea is shot down during the peer review stage, which is basically everyone else out there with knowledge testing your theory and trying to tear it down.

As for the article, it does not come as much of a surprise people with pre-existing chronic disease are more susceptible to death from a newly introduced pathogen. Nor am I surprised new understanding is coming out, its what SBM is all about.

[Deleted]

We'll forget the first paragraph because it's your take on stuff and at odds with your particular kind of alchemy. The second paragraph states what we all know, that research goes on. The final paragraph is interesting in that you extrapolated the bit you wanted and ignored the reference to malnutrition which was my earlier point. Don't you see the unreliability of all links? The "Some experts have thought", and "thought to have" and "Other experts now think" and "may have" etc etc etc. Most reports are riddled with such stuff which means that all of us are operating in the dark, medical staff included who've been through schooling based on possibilities and probabilities, recycled knowledge, which seems to be used as a hit and miss approach to how we should lead our lives. Add to that the dangers of a money-driven system and you have potential disaster - my particular take on it being that ultimately it could cause the decimation of the human species by default, when the pills run out.

[voice]

I can see why you don't want to address the points on paragraph one, its just impossible for you to argue against and you know it.

I addressed your malnutrition straw man earlier, a malnourished child who is vaccinated won't get the disease, simple as that. As for the moan about "Some experts have thought", and "thought to have" and "Other experts now think" and "may have" etc etc etc, well really you link to news articles about science and SBM, and we know the media are often as health illiterate as its readers, I'd suggest if you are ever actually interested in SBM research then go to the actual paper. I used to read the Nursing Times when in the UK and they had this column every month on new research and it went like this 'What the media reported vs what the paper actually said' rarely was it reported accurately. Again its why SBM does not rely on Google searches as the woosters do.

This might help

[perrykneeham]

Pseudoscience = Remainer.

SpotFUCKINGon.

[Deleted]

Mmmmmkay...

Why would I want to argue the points of para 1? They're of little or no interest to me; subloxones I've never heard of; but I'd question your crystal statement, considering the power some hold. Crystal salt saves lives for an obvious example. They made radios from them. We wouldn't be communicating now without them as semiconductors. In the future we may be using them to generate sound waves which destroy cancer. You seem to think I'm knocking what you do, but that's far from true. I respect what you and your other medical buddies do - fuxake man, you've saved my life on at least one occasion, probably more. I just like to take a wider view on the general issues.