Results 701 to 725 of 840
Thread: Vaccinations and autism?
-
05-29-2019, 10:54 PM #701
Curious what peeps here think or know about the studies performed by peter aaby. Here’s one of his recent ones: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/
-
05-29-2019, 11:29 PM #702
No vaccine is completely safe; if a vaccine achieves herd immunity in a population, those not vaccinated will receive the benefit of not contracting the target diseases while being spared the small risks of the vaccine. So the unvaccinated will have less mortality than the vaccinated, BUT only if nearly all children are vaccinated. The important thing to look at is child mortality before and after the vaccine was introduced, which went down dramatically. Unfortunately it is impossible to say how much of this reduced mortality was due to the vaccine and how much was due to other public health measures such as better nutrition and public hygiene that were instituted at the same time.
The vaccine in the study is not the same as used in the west. It is a cheaper whole bacteria vaccine, rather than the toxin-based vaccine used in the west. One question--is the risk of the vaccine in this study due to the inherent design of the vaccine or are companies selling cheap vaccine to poor countries cutting corners? Could the vaccine be made safer and still protect?
-
05-30-2019, 09:19 AM #703Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,428
OG, Two things some people I know won't shut up about are the health improvements being responsible for the declines in measles etc.
The other is lack of double blind studies being done to "prove" vaccines are safe.
Im pretty sure there will be no change with these people until their sweet darlings actually get measles and smallpox is killing people again
All medical procedures have some risk. It's almost comical that vaccines are the ones they focus on
Congress being inept at managing the pharmaceutical industry only adds fuel to their fire
-
05-30-2019, 02:17 PM #704
90% or more of the improvement in life expectancy in the west over the last few centuries is due to vaccination, sanitary sewer systems, and obstetricians washing their hands. Add cleaner air and water in the last century or so and there's not much improvement attributable to $1M/ year wonder drugs (as in I wonder why we pay for them).
-
05-30-2019, 02:24 PM #705
^ And antibiotics.
-
05-30-2019, 02:28 PM #706
-
05-30-2019, 03:12 PM #707Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 31,085
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
05-30-2019, 03:17 PM #708
-
05-30-2019, 03:21 PM #709
-
05-30-2019, 03:37 PM #710
-
05-30-2019, 03:44 PM #711Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,428
-
05-30-2019, 03:49 PM #712Funky But Chic
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- The Cone of Uncertainty
- Posts
- 49,306
-
05-30-2019, 03:54 PM #713
-
05-30-2019, 04:32 PM #714
Penicillin first became available in quantity in the early 1940's. A look at life expectancy charts graphs shows that increases in life expectancy slowed about that time.
http://censuschannel.net/cc/news/lif...-year-old-1655
As far as vaccination goes, the big one was smallpox.
The biggest killer in the middle ages was plague which was largely conquered by dealing with rats. By the time antibiotics came around plague was rare.
As far as the risk of vaccines--when we were traveling to the Amazon we were advised that the yellow fever vaccine was too risk at our age.
From the standpoint of an individual parent the decision not to vaccinate their child is a rational one. If we place the welfare of our children foremost we let other people's children take the small risk of vaccination, which will also protect ours. That's why things like vaccination and other public health laws and regulations are necessary. Americans find it hard to accept that they may have to do things for the good of the many that might possibly have an adverse affect on themselves and their children--that they do not get to decide what is best for their children.
-
05-30-2019, 04:40 PM #715
-
05-30-2019, 04:45 PM #716
-
05-30-2019, 04:46 PM #717
-
05-30-2019, 05:14 PM #718
-
05-30-2019, 05:21 PM #719
-
05-30-2019, 05:53 PM #720
You misinterpret his comments. He is saying the that life expectancy continued to rise with the advent of antibiotics but not as steeply as the preceding years. The preceding years saw widespread water treatment implemented in American cities, vaccines for diphtheria (huge killer) pertussis and tetanus, and the implementation of the Pure Food and Drug Act.
Originally Posted by blurred
-
05-30-2019, 05:53 PM #721
-
05-30-2019, 06:08 PM #722
-
05-30-2019, 09:35 PM #723
-
05-30-2019, 09:46 PM #724Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- SF & the Ho
- Posts
- 9,428
-
05-30-2019, 09:57 PM #725
It means life expectancy is still increasing* after the early 1940's, just not increasing as fast as it was earlier. I'm not saying antibiotics are harmful, just that we can't credit them with as much benefit as other factors.
*US life expectancy is actually decreasing for the last couple of years.
One other factor in increasing life expectancy--better nutrition--is now one factor in decreasing life expectancy.
Bookmarks