Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kelleybug
However, when vaccination rates drop, why do disease rates increase if there is little or no benefit to vaccines?
|
But....SUPPOSING..... a few options
1) If, bugs are "opportunistic" as you say, and I agree, then anyone living on junk food will have breaches in the immune system. If they HAPPEN to come across an immunable disease, whether or not they have so called natural or vaccine antibodies they might get it anyway. After all, my kids have had measles twice. But you don't KNOW when, or if they come in contact with it, because sometimes you don't see it.
The condition of the cellular immune system is paramount, not the presence of antibodies, because a lot of people who get, say diphtheria or pertussis have been proven to have antibodies shortly before. It's there in the medical literature.
2) JUST SAY, and I'm not saying this is so, some people do derive temporary benefit from vaccine antibodies, if they are still living on junk food, while their body might decide to skip what they have antibodies to, that time, if they come in contact with another pathogen, like one from your throat you passed on from hospital, that might be the one to take advantage of their lack of health.
That's why death numbers rarely decrease. what you gain of a swing, you might lose on the see-saw.
3) Doctor bias. How do you know what they report as a certain disease is a disease? I remember reading a study in Maryland Medical Journal about some supposed pertussis cases, around about 50, I think it was...and how this was all these mother's fault who didn't immunise.
A doctor who was getting annoyed at this, had all the children tested and re-examined, and only one had mild pertussis and all the others had coughing from other pathogens.
Even James Cherry admitted in a study he wrote, that doctor bias affects what the diagnosis is. If the person is vaccinated, will they diagnose it? In mumps you don't have too much option, as its sort of dramatic, and pretty hard to confuse two huge lumps under the chops with mere peas of swollen glands from a cold.
But other diseases, and pertussis is a classic example, lend themselves to all sorts of creative diagnoses when the paradigm doesn't fit the theory.
Even clinical polio now has a raft of diagnostic differentials that never existed before viral testing was perfected. That's why they like to call polio "acute flaccid paralysis" instead of polio, until they work out what virus (or even bacteria in some cases) causes the "duck waddle". You can't implicate a successful vaccine.
So whereas in the past, if it walked like a duck, talked like a duck, looked like a duck, it was a duck.
Now there are lots of breeds of duck depending on which duck you don't want to implicate.
That is the history of epidemiology.
I came across a wonderful quote at the bottom of one such article which said "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. What is concealed is crucial."
Now, I'm not going to be around for a few days, okay?
). I used to do research all the time in school, but it is a bit more difficult with lack of time (I am currently home with my 3 kids, homeschooling my eldest as well as trying to re-educate myself so I can think clearer and articulate my thoughts and opinions better.)
