Romanticizing the past - Mothering Forums
1 2 
Vaccinations > Romanticizing the past
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 06:12 PM 06-03-2014
Came across this blogger today and was scrolling through some of her posts and this one stuck out at me. I think it's a good and interesting read. She is refuting a piece called "Why your grandparents don't have food allergies...but you do."

I hear about how great the good ole days were a lot, and how vaccines and preservatives are a big reason why we have allergies etc.

The blog post touches on vaccines a tad, but makes other really good points.

What do you guys think?

http://patientspatienceandpaces.blog...zing-past.html

Turquesa's Avatar Turquesa 08:02 PM 06-03-2014
Her article does not even mention romanticizing the past with regards to vaccines and vaccine-targeted diseases, so I'm not sure how this is directly vaccine-related.

I do agree with her overall contention that it's a bad idea to generalize about the past. The people inhabiting our soil have never been a monolith.
prosciencemum's Avatar prosciencemum 01:00 AM 06-07-2014
Tea - nice article, thanks for posting.

It might not mention vaccination, but it sure mentions lots of people dying or being seriously injured by diseases which today are rare - largely because of vaccination.

Like the point that people with serious allergies (or asthma I imagine) would have simply died young in the past - so not contributing to statistics on allergy rates after that.
rachelsmama's Avatar rachelsmama 06:26 AM 06-07-2014
I only scanned the article, so I may have missed a few things. I agree with Turquesa that this would probably be better located in another forum, maybe Talk Among Ourselves? I also agree with the article that the past was a lot less romantic than some people suggest (but I also read The Jungle, so maybe we have compatible opinions because of that shared influence). Unlike the author, I also think that the past was less universally miserable than some people suggest. It's true that a lot of the nasty stuff that goes on today was going on, but just like today, there were also people who ate healthy, consistently had work, had just enough saved up that they could hire a doctor if they needed one, had enough space that they could avoid their neighbours if they were sick, etc... While the exact details keep changing I think that the past and the present are more similar than they are different: luck and greed have a huge impact and everybody dies in the end.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah 09:18 PM 06-09-2014
I think it would be more interesting to consider this article from 1950. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1520569/

"The over-all rates of death in childhood decreased five to ten fold during the first half of the century, with the greatest drop occurring in deaths due to infections. The death rate due to accidents has shown a relatively slight decrease; hence, accidents are now the leading cause of childhood death, and in California account for 32 per cent of the deaths in the group 1 to 15 years of age."

I agree that some people do tend to romanticize the past, but there are some interesting bits and pieces worth digging through to get a more complete picture. For example, for anyone interested in how people lived and what they ate in the early 1900s in NYC, get hold of this book from your local public library: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/bo...anted=all&_r=0 “97 Orchard: An Edible History of Five Immigrant Families in One New York Tenement.”

I was surprised by how well these families managed under the circumstances.

For a picture of the very bottom of the barrel in NYC I recommend http://www.nysun.com/arts/how-jacob-...e-other/84669/ "As Tom Buk-Swienty shows in "The Other Half" ... his new biography of Riis, the great reformer and muckraker earned his knowledge of the slums the hard way, over a dozen years of shoe-leather reporting. As a police reporter for the New York Tribune, Riis spent his nights huddled with other journalists at 301 Mulberry St., across from police headquarters." this one should also be available from your local public library.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 03:27 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Tea - nice article, thanks for posting.

It might not mention vaccination, but it sure mentions lots of people dying or being seriously injured by diseases which today are rare - largely because of vaccination.

Like the point that people with serious allergies (or asthma I imagine) would have simply died young in the past - so not contributing to statistics on allergy rates after that.
Funny, I posted this and then got busy and had forgotten about it ha

Yes, it may not say the word "vaccine" but it is still applicable to a lot of issues surrounding vaccinating/not vaccinating.

It seems like there is this idea that people in the olden days got these VPDs, rested, ate some home made chicken noodle soup and were just fine, because they all ate nutritious organic food and were well nourished and got plenty of sunshine.

That's now how it was in reality. People died from these diseases all the time, malnutrition and poverty was rampant etc.

I agree she makes a fantastic point re vaccines causing an increase in severe allergies. It's easy for us to say "our grandparents never had any peanut/strawberry/bee sting allergies!" because, like she said, there wouldn't have been much anyone could do for someone in anaphylactic shock back then. They would have simply died, and thus not procreated. (This idea never held any water for me anyway because my grandfather was severely allergic to penicillin and wore a necklace and bracelet every day of his life indicating such. )

Ditto your asthma comparison. There is a huge genetic component to asthma as well.

"Blame Mom or Dad or both for your asthma. Your inherited genetic makeup predisposes you to having asthma. In fact, it's thought that three-fifths of all asthma cases are hereditary. According to a CDC report, if a person has a parent with asthma, he or she is three to six times more likely to develop asthma than someone who does not have a parent with asthma."

http://www.webmd.com/asthma/guide/asthma-risk-factors
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 05:45 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

It seems like there is this idea that people in the olden days got these VPDs, rested, ate some home made chicken noodle soup and were just fine…….


http://www.webmd.com/asthma/guide/asthma-risk-factors
That is because statistically, with most VAD's, that is what did happen. CDC Pink Book says so.
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 05:53 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Ditto your asthma comparison. There is a huge genetic component to asthma as well.

"
http://www.webmd.com/asthma/guide/asthma-risk-factors
There are no genetic epidemics!

Asthma rates have risen in a shocking manor in the last few decades.

Why does everything have to be blamed on "genetics?" It seems like a cop out to me, and such apologist attitudes benefits industry, not children.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah 06:44 PM 06-27-2014
The question remains: Did children die of infectious diseases because these illnesses are all incredibly dangerous or because they were malnourished, living in filth and misery and sometimes lacked care at all because everyone was working?

The answer is both. Typhoid fever, for example, is terribly dangerous and a bit of chicken soup isn't likely to save anyone's life. Was typhoid fever defeated in the US by a vaccine?

Measles, on the other hand, went from killing a very significant number of children (and adults) to being a minor cause of death with most of the deaths concentrated in the poorest areas of the US (just as measles continues to be a cause of death mainly in the poorest countries in the world), a sign that the problem is not the incredible deadly character of measles, but the susceptibility of some populations due to poor living conditions.

We need to be specific and talk about particular times, places and illnesses. Generalizations are always untrue...
beckybird's Avatar beckybird 07:52 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Generalizations are always untrue...
Lol!

Good post!
Viola P's Avatar Viola P 10:27 PM 06-27-2014
I found it pretty odd that she takes issue with the notion that there are more chemicals and preservatives in food now than there were a hundred years ago. But I guess according to her unless I can point to some greater authority nothing I say matters. Oh yeah, I also found her terribly condescending. We aren't suffering from a lack of intelligence, we are suffering from a lack of kindness, you know? That's why the world is so messed up, because we are so aggressive and many of us prioritize intelligence over kindness. Sad to see that play out.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 10:49 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
That is because statistically, with most VAD's, that is what did happen. CDC Pink Book says so.
Well I guess if you're counting anything that kills less than 50 percent of the time as "most" of the time, yes that's technically true. Not even smallpox killed more than 50% of the time, but it was still a nasty nasty disease.

In 1900, infectious diseases accounted for over 50% of deaths. In 2010, they accounted for 3 percent.

Some interesting graphs:




Viola P's Avatar Viola P 10:53 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Well I guess if you're counting anything that kills less than 50 percent of the time as "most" of the time, yes that's technically true. Not even smallpox killed more than 50% of the time, but it was still a nasty nasty disease.

...]
Crap a first I thought those pie charts said 2010 and 1990! I was like, what?!

Now that I've read it correctly i have to say I'm not surprised.

But I guess I agree with the overall sentiment, things were more barbaric and difficult in the past for the most part, which is saying a lot considering how difficult and barbaric things are today.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 10:57 PM 06-27-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
The question remains: Did children die of infectious diseases because these illnesses are all incredibly dangerous or because they were malnourished, living in filth and misery and sometimes lacked care at all because everyone was working?

The answer is both. Typhoid fever, for example, is terribly dangerous and a bit of chicken soup isn't likely to save anyone's life. Was typhoid fever defeated in the US by a vaccine?

Measles, on the other hand, went from killing a very significant number of children (and adults) to being a minor cause of death with most of the deaths concentrated in the poorest areas of the US (just as measles continues to be a cause of death mainly in the poorest countries in the world), a sign that the problem is not the incredible deadly character of measles, but the susceptibility of some populations due to poor living conditions.

We need to be specific and talk about particular times, places and illnesses. Generalizations are always untrue...
I don't consider a disease that requires access to strong antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs, and everything else modern medicine can throw at it to get the death rate down to 1 in 1,000 to be a minor disease. As another member put it, let's just say the common cold doesn't require that kind of intervention.

I'll make the point again that if any vaccine on the market killed a child 1 out of every 2,000 doses, no one here would consider that a "harmless" or "mild" vaccine.
rachelsmama's Avatar rachelsmama 02:41 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Well I guess if you're counting anything that kills less than 50 percent of the time as "most" of the time, yes that's technically true. Not even smallpox killed more than 50% of the time, but it was still a nasty nasty disease.

In 1900, infectious diseases accounted for over 50% of deaths. In 2010, they accounted for 3 percent.

Some interesting graphs:

This graph doesn't make much sense, it seems to imply that a bit more than 40% of the population now is immortal.
prosciencemum's Avatar prosciencemum 04:32 AM 06-28-2014
I assume it's missing out the words "annual death rate per 100,000 people". People live longer today so less die annually.
prosciencemum's Avatar prosciencemum 04:34 AM 06-28-2014
Less per 100,000 I mean!
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 07:42 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Well I guess if you're counting anything that kills less than 50 percent of the time as "most" of the time, yes that's technically true. Not even smallpox killed more than 50% of the time, but it was still a nasty nasty disease.

The following have mortality rates of less than 1/1000 per estimated case :

measles
mumps
pertussis (this one is debateable)

The following have a less than 1/10 000:
chicken pox
rubella
rotavirus

You graphs don't really prove your point. They do not discuss how many people succumbed to VAD's either individually or even enmasse before vaccines, which is the point at hand.


This is not about romanticizing the past. I simply doubt people in 1920 quaked at the fear of chicken pox or mumps.


You think there is a tendency for us to romanticize the past - and I think there is a equal tendency to make the past seem more horrible than it was . The past is not a monolith. Some people and cultures did very well in the past and had decent life expectancies (wealthy Ancient Greeks, for example) and some times were horrible.


We have made some great strides in health that I am very thankful for - hygiene measure, antibiotics, ways to rehydrate people. I simply do not think vaccines have contributed massively to longer longevity in most well-off countries. Look at the stats above - the vast majority of people did not die of rubella, chicken pox, mumps, etc.


This is not to say vaccines do not have their place, nor is it to besmirch the good vaccines have done nationally and particularly internationally (although that good has come at a cost). It is simply to say that vaccines, overall, have not "saved us" a point easily made using well accepted, mainstream statistics on morbidity and mortality rates.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah 08:17 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
I don't consider a disease that requires access to strong antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs, and everything else modern medicine can throw at it to get the death rate down to 1 in 1,000 to be a minor disease. As another member put it, let's just say the common cold doesn't require that kind of intervention.
As a "survivor" of measles, without the benefit of antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs or any of the other wonders of modern medicine, I find this rather sad. In the 1950s, when I went through measles, there were estimated to be 4 million cases per year. The death rate for this entire group, which included, no doubt a few adults, was 450 cases per year. By your assumption, there should have been 4,000 deaths. There should have been, let's see, 20% hospitalized? Something like 800,000 cases ending up in the hospital?

This is sadly typical. After a vaccine changes the demographics of the illness and before every single case gets counted, it is possible to rewrite history and make measles look as though it was consistently deadly and we were only saved by a) the vaccine and b) heroic medicine.

This is the sort of narrative that actually moves people away from trusting vaccinations.

The reasoning goes like this: I can look up the numbers and see that measles was not nearly as bad as it is being pictured. Someone is misusing statistics to tell a false story. The person I'm listening to has been deceived by this misuse of statistics. If there is a purposeful distortion of the facts to push a product...and it sure looks that way...can I trust anything from the source?

I find it very telling that my thread attempting to discuss the study about PDD rates in Montreal has attracted so few comments.

Let's be critical of the pro-vaccine narrative, of the pro-vaccine science and of the pro-vaccine statistics.
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 08:44 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I don't consider a disease that requires access to strong antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs, and everything else modern medicine can throw at it to get the death rate down to 1 in 1,000 to be a minor disease. As another member put it, let's just say the common cold doesn't require that kind of intervention.

.

Except measles doesn't.


The CDC says only about 1/7 cases of measles were ever reported. We also know that about 1/10 people with reported cases of measles ends up in hospital.


So....1/70 people with measles end up in the hospital. There are lots of questions we need to answer as to why they end up in hospital (is it so rare that doctors just want to keep a good eye on them? Did 1/10 people end up in hospital when it was more common? Are certain age groups more likely to end up in hospital (and has vaccination played into this?) ) It is also fair to say that most people in the hospital with measles probably do not require "everything modern medicine can throw at them" to keep the death rate at 1/1000. That is an unsupported, hyperbolic statement. I suspect many need rehydration and antibiotics if they have a secondary infection - pretty straightforward things.
samaxtics's Avatar samaxtics 09:09 AM 06-28-2014
They throw everything at them but what they really need; Probably accounts for the poor outcome.

Quote:
Vitamin A administration also reduces opportunistic infections such as pneumonia and diarrhea associated with measles virus-induced immune suppression. Vitamin A supplementation has been shown to reduce risk of complications due to pneumonia after an acute measles episode. A study in South Africa showed that the mortality could be reduced by 80% in acute measles with complications, following high-dose vitamin A supplementation. [37] http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20....gqWbpK8S.dpuf
Quote:
During an epidemic [of measles] vitamin C was used prophylactically and all those who received as much as 1000 mg. every six hours, by vein or muscle, were protected from the virus. Given by mouth, 1000 mg. in fruit juice every two hours was not protective unless it was given around the clock. It was further found that 1000 mg. by mouth, four to six times each day, would modify the attack; with the appearance of Koplik’s spots and fever, if the administration was increased to 12 doses each 24 hours, all signs and symptoms would disappear in 48 hours. [38] -
reference found at link above

Do patients who present at the hospitals with measles, receive either of these vitamins?
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 11:09 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

We have made some great strides in health that I am very thankful for - hygiene measure, antibiotics, ways to rehydrate people. I simply do not think vaccines have contributed massively to longer longevity in most well-off countries. Look at the stats above - the vast majority of people did not die of rubella, chicken pox, mumps, etc.
We recently had a huge measles thread with I don't even know how many pages that went into all the measles statistics. Not going to go through it again. Search for the thread "Measles", but I'm sure you remember it

I posted this a while ago, but there was massive research done on disease incidence a year or so ago that showed we prevented over 100 million cases of disease.

Without vaccines, we would have, in 2010 :

Polio: 25,000
Measles: 900,000
Rubella: 84,000
Mumps: 270,000
Hepatitis A: 35,000
Diphtheria: 700,000
Pertussis: 350,000

And I'm not sure if the rubella statistic was congenital rubella or not, but pre vaccine, during a single outbreak we would see over 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome, over 11,000 spontaneous abortions, 2,100 neonatal deaths. And thats WITH rubella parties and parents trying to make sure their daughters caught it in childhood.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6212a3.htm

http://www.tycho.pitt.edu/data/level2.php

So yeah, lets just say I disagree that vaccines have not contributed to longer longevity in the US.
Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 11:23 AM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
We recently had a huge measles thread with I don't even know how many pages that went into all the measles statistics. Not going to go through it again. Search for the thread "Measles", but I'm sure you remember it

I posted this a while ago, but there was massive research done on disease incidence a year or so ago that showed we prevented over 100 million cases of disease.

Without vaccines, we would have, in 2010 :

Polio: 25,000
Measles: 900,000
Rubella: 84,000
Mumps: 270,000
Hepatitis A: 35,000
Diphtheria: 700,000
Pertussis: 350,000

And I'm not sure if the rubella statistic was congenital rubella or not, but pre vaccine, during a single outbreak we would see over 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome, over 11,000 spontaneous abortions, 2,100 neonatal deaths. And thats WITH rubella parties and parents trying to make sure their daughters caught it in childhood.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6212a3.htm

http://www.tycho.pitt.edu/data/level2.php

So yeah, lets just say I disagree that vaccines have not contributed to longer longevity in the US.
Vaccines may or may not have contributed to longer longevity in the US. Since the introduction of vaccines for the most severe diseases, like diphtheria and pertussis, also coincided with huge improvements in availability of modern sanitation, antibiotics, improved nutrition, access to safer housing, and improved medical knowledge and care, there is no exact science letting us know exactly what is responsible for what.

How about foregoing the double standard? If you reject correlative evidence for a vaccine-autism link, you must also reject it for the vaccines-saved-lives mantra, especially when the contribution of the current vaccine schedule to drastically rising rates of deadly autoimmune diseases and cancer is unknown.

We all know it's scary to admit that the vaccination program--something we truly believed would save us from illness and death--is actually built on lies. The fact that those lies are blended with truths and half-truths does not make them any less dishonest.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 12:02 PM 06-28-2014
@Taximom

If sanitation was the cause of the incidence drop, we would have seen these diseases all disappearing at the same time. That's not what happened. Measles incidence dropped one year, chickenpox in another, hib in yet another, diptheria in yet another etc.

To be sure, some diseases were controlled by sanitation (like cholera). But the vast majority cannot.
Deborah's Avatar Deborah 12:30 PM 06-28-2014
Quote:
If sanitation was the cause of the incidence drop, we would have seen these diseases all disappearing at the same time. That's not what happened. Measles incidence dropped one year, chickenpox in another, hib in yet another, diptheria in yet another etc.
Once again, crossing incidence with mortality just muddies the waters.

Mortality clearly dropped because of rising living standards.

Morbidity dropped for some illnesses due to rising living standards. Clear examples are diphtheria, typhoid fever, cholera, and tuberculosis.

The mere elimination of a single infectious illness does not equal an increase in overall health.

Sanitation didn't happen all at the same time. I was born in 1950. Millions of people in the US were still using outhouses at that point and some didn't have running water in their homes. Malnutrition due to poverty was still very common, especially in areas like Appalachia, inner city slums and any area with minority groups.

I find the switching back and forth between morbidity and mortality numbers interesting as another example of the inherent dishonesty behind the vaccine movement (not individual vaccine supporters, who I suspect are mostly confused true believers).

You get people going: "vaccines have saved millions of lives" and when they are shown the numbers that mortality dropped drastically before the vaccine was invented there is a quick switch to: "vaccines have prevented millions of cases" and then when someone points out that the standards for diagnosis are sometimes tightened up right after a vaccine is released, guaranteeing an instant drop in incidence (happened with polio and measles) ...and on it goes. Tiresome IMO.
kathymuggle's Avatar kathymuggle 12:45 PM 06-28-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
Vaccines may or may not have contributed to longer longevity in the US. Since the introduction of vaccines for the most severe diseases, like diphtheria and pertussis, also coincided with huge improvements in availability of modern sanitation, antibiotics, improved nutrition, access to safer housing, and improved medical knowledge and care, there is no exact science letting us know exactly what is responsible for what.
Agreed.

We also do not know if vaccines are linked to some current conditions which are on the rise and do affect longevity. Asthma, for one.
Taximom5's Avatar Taximom5 05:57 PM 06-29-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Once again, crossing incidence with mortality just muddies the waters.

Mortality clearly dropped because of rising living standards.

Morbidity dropped for some illnesses due to rising living standards. Clear examples are diphtheria, typhoid fever, cholera, and tuberculosis.

The mere elimination of a single infectious illness does not equal an increase in overall health.

Sanitation didn't happen all at the same time. I was born in 1950. Millions of people in the US were still using outhouses at that point and some didn't have running water in their homes. Malnutrition due to poverty was still very common, especially in areas like Appalachia, inner city slums and any area with minority groups.

I find the switching back and forth between morbidity and mortality numbers interesting as another example of the inherent dishonesty behind the vaccine movement (not individual vaccine supporters, who I suspect are mostly confused true believers).

You get people going: "vaccines have saved millions of lives" and when they are shown the numbers that mortality dropped drastically before the vaccine was invented there is a quick switch to: "vaccines have prevented millions of cases" and then when someone points out that the standards for diagnosis are sometimes tightened up right after a vaccine is released, guaranteeing an instant drop in incidence (happened with polio and measles) ...and on it goes. Tiresome IMO.
EXACTLY.

teacozy, Deborah has completely shredded your argument. Please don't feel bad though--you have to remember, most of us here have learned the hard way, that what we were taught about vaccine safety, efficacy, and need was largely a pack of lies. We were once exactly where you are, believing that vaccines eradicated all major diseases, etc. It was a very difficult and painful lesson to learn, that our government and the vaccine industry were not telling us the truth.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 01:17 PM 06-30-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
You get people going: "vaccines have saved millions of lives" and when they are shown the numbers that mortality dropped drastically before the vaccine was invented there is a quick switch to: "vaccines have prevented millions of cases" and then when someone points out that the standards for diagnosis are sometimes tightened up right after a vaccine is released, guaranteeing an instant drop in incidence (happened with polio and measles) ...and on it goes. Tiresome IMO.
It's both. More cases of disease= more deaths from those diseases.

We know modern death rates for virtually all of these diseases. We know what the incidence of these diseases were pre vaccine.

Diphtheria has a modern death rate of 10-20 percent, depending on the age group. 700,000 cases of diphtheria in a single year in the US would equal roughly 70,000 deaths. In one country. In one year.

We know pre vaccine that Polio outbreaks would often have 20,000 cases of paralytic polio in a single outbreak. In just the US. We also know that sanitation likely exasperated the outbreaks, not helped them. There is no magic cure for paralytic polio that we have today that they didn't have during the 50s. People would still be put in modern iron lungs today if Polio returned.

There is no magic cure that we have today to help fetuses exposed to Rubella that they didn't have in the 70s. There is nothing we can do for them once they are exposed. Single rubella outbreaks in just the US resulted in 20,000+ cases of CRS and thousands and thousands of neonatal deaths and miscarriages.

Same goes for Hib etc.
teacozy's Avatar teacozy 01:22 PM 06-30-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
There are no genetic epidemics!

Asthma rates have risen in a shocking manor in the last few decades.

Why does everything have to be blamed on "genetics?" It seems like a cop out to me, and such apologist attitudes benefits industry, not children.
The bolded is a pretty simplistic statement.

Down Syndrome rates have increased pretty dramatically, for instance. I don't think anyone here is going to argue with the fact that it is a genetic condition.

"From 1979 through 2003, the prevalence of DS at birth increased by 31.1%, from 9.0 to 11.8 per 10000 live births in 10 US regions. In 2002, the prevalence among children and adolescents (0–19 years old) was 10.3 per 10000. The prevalence of DS among children in a given age group consistently increased over time but decreased with age within a given birth cohort."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...24/6/1565.long

And thats just live births. It's estimated that 2/3 of all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated in the US.
samaxtics's Avatar samaxtics 01:59 PM 06-30-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


Diphtheria has a modern death rate of 10-20 percent, depending on the age group. 700,000 cases of diphtheria in a single year in the US would equal roughly 70,000 deaths. In one country. In one year.

Starting with the quote above. Source Please!
1 2 

Up