Mothering Forum banner
21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
They throw everything at them but what they really need; Probably accounts for the poor outcome.

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/2...d-the-forgotten-history/#sthash.gqWbpK8S.dpuf
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,137 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,885 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 · (Edited)
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
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.org/content/124/6/1565.long

And thats just live births. It's estimated that 2/3 of all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,885 Posts
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.org/content/124/6/1565.long

And thats just live births. It's estimated that 2/3 of all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated in the US.
Bolding mine. The increase is due to the trend towards older mothers.

Personally, I find expected rises in numbers less problematic than unexpected rises in numbers…The degree to which numbers rise is also important.

Down syndrome is also not an epidemic, IMHO.

It might be useful to define epidemic and discuss heritability. Later, though, and perhaps on another thread…. children call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,078 Posts
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.org/content/124/6/1565.long

And thats just live births. It's estimated that 2/3 of all Down Syndrome pregnancies are terminated in the US.
Down Syndrome was first identified in England in 1866, and the first child diagnosed in Germany was in 1922. Of course it can't be proven but it has been theorized that it could be a congenital condition caused by Jenner's smallpox vaccine. Of course it could be better diagnosis, maybe it was missed prior to 1866. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
Bolding mine. The increase is due to the trend towards older mothers.

Personally, I find expected rises in numbers less problematic than unexpected rises in numbers…The degree to which numbers rise is also important.

Down syndrome is also not an epidemic, IMHO.

It might be useful to define epidemic and discuss heritability. Later, though, and perhaps on another thread…. children call.
It's also not contagious.
We also would need to factor in infants with Downs that now due to heart surgery improvements are making it beyond infancy, that did not occurs in the numbers we now have even 20 years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,137 Posts
The CDC is making some interesting assumptions in their expectation that diphtheria would come roaring back and cause hundreds of thousands of cases and deaths.

For one thing, the last big epidemic, with about 200,000 cases, was in the early 1920s. Although a vaccine was available by 1928, vaccination programs were inconsistent, there was no funding of vaccination by the federal government or by charities and there is no evidence that the vaccine had any effect on incidence, which continued to drop at about the same rate.

Here is some evidence from the early 1950s:
From an article by Geoffrey Edsall–Immunization of Adults Against Diptheria and Tetanus–presented in 1951 and published in 1952: …generally agreed the relative susceptibility of adults to diphtheria is related to the steady decrease in the incidence of the disease, a decrease which in this country has proceeded almost without interruption for the past eighty years, and which has occurred in states with no extensive immunization programs as well as in those with long established programs.
emphasis added.

I can come up with the actual number of cases in the 1930s . Suffice it to say that they were very much lower than the 200,000 from the last major epidemic. The decline in incidence, began, according to Edsall, somewhere around 1870, which would have been roughly 58 years before the vaccine was invented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,137 Posts
The CDC reference isn't very big on citations. There is only one that is vaguely relevant to the claim that an end to vaccinations would cause huge outbreaks in the US "Vitek CR, Wharton M. Diphtheria in the former Soviet Union: reemergence of a pandemic disease. Emerg Infect Dis
1998;4:539–50."

There are some serious problems with using the events in the former Soviet Union as a template. At the same time that vaccination rates dipped, living standards plummeted. Sanitation went down hill, malnutrition and alcoholism shot up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,941 Posts
RE: diphtheria

As I understand the disease, it is a disease of poor living conditions, ventilation, and nutrition.

I was told by older members of my family, born 1900-1915, that the usual treatment for diphtheria was warm milk which is just wrong.

So poor understanding of the nature of the disease probably contributed to the mortality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,137 Posts
Good points applejuice. It is likely that with the decline in overall living conditions in the former Soviet Union, medical care had gone down hill, too.

A friend who was living in Russia at the time of the outbreak told me of public health people going methodically through buildings trying to find cases of diphtheria. She told the public health people that she and her family were vaxed and didn't need to be checked. They laughed grimly and checked them all anyway. Which says a lot about the value of the vaccine in the actual presence of the disease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rachelsmama

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,137 Posts
The CDC is very weak on references. Which is odd, because they definitely encourage people to dig into the references...on any thing that is critical of vaccines.

I went searching. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/782051-overview#a0104

Overcrowding, poor health, substandard living conditions, incomplete immunization, and immunocompromised states facilitate susceptibility to diphtheria and are risk factors associated with transmission of this disease
This makes it even odder that the discussions on the outbreak in the former Soviet Union almost always focus on vaccination status and do not discuss falling living standards. The reference for this quote is "Harnisch JP, Tronca E, Nolan CM, Turck M, Holmes KK. Diphtheria among alcoholic urban adults. A decade of experience in Seattle. Ann Intern Med. Jul 1 1989;111(1):71-82." Alcoholism was a factor in Russia, too.

The most widely quoted diphtheria mortality rate is 5-10%. It may reach higher than 20% in children younger than 5 years and adults older than 40 years. Immunization patterns have the most influence on mortality patterns. Mortality rates have not changed significantly over the past few decades. Most deaths occur on days 3-4 secondary to asphyxia with a pharyngeal membrane or due to myocarditis. Mortality rates of 30-40% have been reported for bacteremic disease.[9]
and the reference points to (drumroll) the CDC. "CDC. Summary of notifiable diseases--United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. May 2 2003;50(53):i-xxiv, 1-108."

I'll leave it to someone else to look at that CDC reference and see where they found the number.

As I've already pointed out multiple times, incidence of this disease dropped massively prior to universal vaccination. And yet they endlessly claim that vaccination has an influence on mortality...
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top