Disease decline before vaccines...

[emma1325]

So I have this link:

http://www.*********/vaccines/decline1.html

And this one:


http://www.*********/v/phillips.html#...N%20MYTH%20#3:


But what I'm looking for is a legitimate source which demonstrates that diseases declined before vaccines. I appreciate the above links, but it seems as though the authors haven't backed up their claims with anything concrete (that I was able to find.)


Does anyone have any good links for me, and would anyone like to discuss this issue here?

Thanks...

[ammiga]

This is the website I always look at, but I'm not sure if it has any more references than what you already have. It would be a bit of work, but could you just look up the numbers on the CDC website for the years before and after the vax was introduced?

[carriebft]

remember though with that site it is the DEATH RATE they are charting, not the rate of the disease, so that can be problematic in an argument concerning disease rate.

You can get a lot of info at the CDC; they directly attack this line of argumentation here:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/...aseshadalready

demonstrating that incidence of measles dropped significantly with introduction of the vaccine. It was once a common childhood illness and ceased to be so.

[ammiga]

Just for the sake of conversation... wouldn't you be more concerned with the death rate than the rate of the disease? I mean, I don't see any big deal with most of these diseases, as I find them to be harmless. I would be more concerned if they were deadly.

[carriebft]

Perhaps if you were talking to someone else only worried about death. But many are worried about other things:

Hib:
Epiglottitis
pneumonia
meningitis
mental retardation
etc

Pertussis:
-lengthy disease
-broken ribs
-pneumonia

Mumps
-deafness

Measles
-encephalitis
-pneumonia
-subacute sclerosing panencephalitis

etc

Also, in a debate about the effectiveness of a vaccine in preventing illness, it is the rate of the disease that would matter.

[runes]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Also, in a debate about the effectiveness of a vaccine in preventing illness, it is the rate of the disease that would matter.

Agreed. But how often is the "dead baby" card used against mothers who are questioning vaccines?

[suschi]

There is a real time example you can look up right now...check the stats on TB in the US, go back to the 50's, check the stats over the years from the 50's to current, you will see the disease decline in action, because as of today, there is no tb shot on the recommended vaccine schedule, yet it has been declining steadily, WITHOUT A MAGIC VACCINE!! How can that be!

ps, not sure what you would consider a legitimate source, but you can find the stats at MMWR.

[vitochka]

I come from Ukraine, where they still have a tb vax and at the same time tb is growing and they say it s getting "epidemic" sometimes inspite of everyone being vaccinated at birth (that vaccine is obviously not working). And nobody belives me when I say that in the USA tb declined without a vaccine.They honestly think it is impossible.I wish they spend more money on improving sanitary conditions(especially in prisons where tb is epidemic) instead of wasting them on a useless vax.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by ammiga

I mean, I don't see any big deal with most of these diseases, as I find them to be harmless. I would be more concerned if they were deadly.

While I believe that many might be true for many childhood diseases, I think it's better to have some respect for the power of them because they really are not always just harmless, even the the ones that children always had that were "no big deal". Paralytic polio is not "just harmless" and this has nothing to do with there being no cases in the US for a significant period of time or about how the polio vaccine works or doesn't work.

[EVC]

Originally Posted by vitochka

I come from Ukraine, where they still have a tb vax and at the same time tb is growing and they say it s getting "epidemic" sometimes inspite of everyone being vaccinated at birth (that vaccine is obviously not working). And nobody belives me when I say that in the USA tb declined without a vaccine.They honestly think it is impossible.I wish they spend more money on improving sanitary conditions(especially in prisons where tb is epidemic) instead of wasting them on a useless vax.

Getting a little off topic, perhaps, but my friend just wrote an article about this:

http://rising.globalvoicesonline.org...o-is-at-fault/

Notice no mention of vaccination as an effective strategy in this battle (despite that it is used widely).

My dd was also born in a country that gives the TB shot at birth. Even my pediatrician there told me not to get it (and she was generally pro-vax). Highly reactive, and clearly not effective. Hence the situation in Ukraine.

So US cases of TB have gone down with NO vax, and TB rates in Ukraine (and several other countries) have gone up WITH a vax. Clearly there is more to disease control than vax introduction.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Perhaps if you were talking to someone else only worried about death. But many are worried about other things:

Hib:
Epiglottitis
pneumonia
meningitis
mental retardation
etc

Pertussis:
-lengthy disease
-broken ribs
-pneumonia

Mumps
-deafness

Measles
-encephalitis
-pneumonia
-subacute sclerosing panencephalitis

etc

Also, in a debate about the effectiveness of a vaccine in preventing illness, it is the rate of the disease that would matter.

I agree that in a conversation about the effectiveness of a vaccine preventing illness, the disease rate is what matters. But what leads most people to care about preventing the disease in the first place is the rate of death and other serious complications.

While the other serious complications you listed are not things I want dd to suffer from, their rates are very low and/or just other things to deal with. Most are not permanent or life threatening. Especially in a child with a healthy and in-tact immune system who is given proper treatment when symptoms occur.

Originally Posted by anewmama

While I believe that many might be true for many childhood diseases, I think it's better to have some respect for the power of them because they really are not always just harmless, even the the ones that children always had that were "no big deal". Paralytic polio is not "just harmless" and this has nothing to do with there being no cases in the US for a significant period of time or about how the polio vaccine works or doesn't work.

After much research, I think the vaccine had very little to do with the decline of paralytic polio cases.

I do respect the power of diseases. However, I also respect the power of a healthy, vax-free, breastfed, immune system.

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by vitochka

I come from Ukraine, where they still have a tb vax and at the same time tb is growing and they say it s getting "epidemic" sometimes inspite of everyone being vaccinated at birth (that vaccine is obviously not working). And nobody belives me when I say that in the USA tb declined without a vaccine.They honestly think it is impossible.I wish they spend more money on improving sanitary conditions(especially in prisons where tb is epidemic) instead of wasting them on a useless vax.

It is easier to give vaccines than to improve sanitary conditions.

[lovebug]

: Oh this is DH's BIG deal on vax. he thinks they are a good thing becasue they helped in the down turn of diseases.

[runes]

Originally Posted by caned & able

It is easier to give vaccines than to improve sanitary conditions.

Unfortunately. Yet when they're giving vaccines that are notoriously ineffective, where does that leave people?

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by ammiga

I do respect the power of diseases. However, I also respect the power of a healthy, vax-free, breastfed, immune system.

This is true. But not every mother can breastfeed, not every child is born healthy and not every child has an intact immune system. Vax-free, is of course, a choice.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by ammiga

After much research, I think the vaccine had very little to do with the decline of paralytic polio cases.

Any specific websites or other resources for me on this one?

[emma1325]

Thanks everyone for your replies!

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by emma1325

Any specific websites or other resources for me on this one?

I don't know if you consider Inside Vaccines reputable, but here is their article on it.

There were more things that I read, but I am admittedly awful at bookmarking all of the studies I read. I know the definition changing and DDT poisoning, I felt like numbers pre and post vax were very skewed.

ETA: The other thing I read in numerous places was that the amount of time they waited to check for paralysis changed after the vax was introduced. Since most cases of paralytic polio were temporary, this ruled out a bunch more cases. I'll post again if I have time to find more links.

[lauradbg]

Originally Posted by ammiga

I don't know if you consider Inside Vaccines reputable, but here is their article on it.

There were more things that I read, but I am admittedly awful at bookmarking all of the studies I read. I know the definition changing and DDT poisoning, I felt like numbers pre and post vax were very skewed.

ETA: The other thing I read in numerous places was that the amount of time they waited to check for paralysis changed after the vax was introduced. Since most cases of paralytic polio were temporary, this ruled out a bunch more cases. I'll post again if I have time to find more links.

In Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's video she addresses this. She said they used to do a visual confirmation once and then again 24 hours later to see if there was paralysis, and then they would diagnose polio. After the vaccine they changed it to something like 30 days after onset of sickness and the second check a month after that... So, it went from two times within 24 hours to two times within 60 days.

I'm sure the rate of polio went down after that.

[suschi]

Originally Posted by anewmama

This is true. But not every mother can breastfeed, not every child is born healthy and not every child has an intact immune system. Vax-free, is of course, a choice.

A very very small number of women cannot breastfeed for a variety of reasons...many do not breastfeed because they do not get any support and give up, thinking they cannot breastfeed.

For the children who are not born healthy, (like my 4th child) and for those who have immune system issues, these are the children who would benefit most from breastfeeding and avoiding vaccines.