Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
That site is a little bit of fact and a little bit of poo. It is a generally well written but misguided application of epidemiology.
It is utterly ridiculous to lump these diverse diseases together. Quarantine is arguably the single best disease control device for self-limiting disease. Every legitimate public health authority will tell you sustainable potable water supplies and basic sanitation are at least an order of magnitude more important than vaccination. But measles and whooping cough abated due to vaccination. Scarlet fever/rheumatic fever rates have always been relatively low in the US but rheumatic fever is essentially nonexistent in late Boomers and GenX due to broad treatment of Group A Strep infections (strep throat) with antibiotics.Mortality due to tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough, measles, typhoid, puerperal fever and infant gastro-enteritis started to fall long before the introduction of immunization and/or antibiotics. The decline was probably due to a great extent to various factors linked to the steady rise in the standard of living: qualitative and quantitative improvements in nutrition; better public and personal hygiene; better housing and working conditions and improvements in education.?
The UK study disagrees with you on whooping cough:
With this pattern well established before 1957, there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality in the trend of events.
That's not a good reason to stop vaccinating. And it's not very good science, either.?The distinguished epidemiologist Thomas McKeown (1912-1988) maintained that reductions in deaths associated with infectious diseases (air-, water-, and food-borne diseases) cannot have been brought about by medical advances, since such diseases were declining long before effective means were available to combat them.?
I'm sorry, but why is establishing a causal relationship between vaccines and reduction in related disease "good science", but establishing a causal relationship between hygiene and medical advances "not good science"?
Now, the truth be told, I'm not entirely anti-vaccine. I'm researching, and learning. I recognize that no medicine is entirely safe.
But I also recognize that we are a LONG way away from understanding the long-term health impacts of a lifetime of vaccines. Vaccines are constantly being introduced, then withdrawn. Some vaccine's small % adverse reactions are MUCH WORSE than the original disease! (MMR for example). Autism has been linked, then vehemently refuted. Why not put further research into it? Because of the fear of a link between autism and vaccines would spur 1,000's of lawsuits (not to mention kill the cash cow of the drug companies). There's a ton of information out there, and the drug companies and the government aren't being forthcoming or proactive.
Vaccines are no different than drug-prescription. The should be administered with great care, and sparingly. And there is a lot of research left to be done, but the "Medical Community" likes to pooh-pooh
I find it insane that we are willing to sell "Flu-Mist" to the general public without ANY medical involvement. There *will* be deaths resulting from Flu-Mist wal-mart sheep who then go home and kill their immuno-compromised relative.
Here's another website for those of you that like to question what you've always been taught. Link
The medical industry and the government are wrong all the time about just about everything. Learn for yourselves.