Posted on 10/19/2001 10:16:17 AM PDT by CholeraJoe
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:31:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Chicken pox is FAR MORE devastating among adults than children in terms of its effects. So knowing this, what parent in their right mind is going to innoculate a child for a non deadly disease, that once caught one is immune from for life, for a vaccine for it that is at most 70% effective, is not guaranteed for life (increasing the liklihood that they may contract the disease in adult hood and suffer far more devastating effects from it). No parent is their right minds would do this, unless they just don't want to deal with a sick child and having to miss work for a week.
There is no justification for this vaccine, it is a joke. Nothing more than a way for drug companies to make some money by pandering to self centered and/or uneducated parents. If you have a healthy child, getting this shot is dumb, no if ands or buts about it. If you child reaches puberty and has not yet contracted the disease, then conisidering it may be reasonable, or if your child has autoimmune or other diseases it may be worth while, but for the vast majority of children this shot is pointless, and can only be justified by selfishness of parents.
Chicken Pox vaccinne for the masses is stupid from a public policy and health perspective. It would be good for those who have children have certain types of illnesses which make them more likely to suffer death or other dibilitating effects from an infection, or for adults who managed somehow not to be infected in youth. But innoculating every child born with this is the height of stupidity from a public policy perspective.
It will be years before the facts are in on vaccinations.
Here are the facts:
You obsess on the fact that with a vaccine that is effective against a given disease, we can eliminate that disease. And you ignore the question, are there unintended undesirable consequences to such a program.
I'm not obsessing on anything. I'm merely stating the fact that vaccines and modern medicine save millions of lives every year around the world as the average life expectancy continues to go up.
It is you who are obsessing on some unknown side effects which might cause a problem sometime in the future. I posted numbers that prove that there are a whole lot of people living now who would have died without vaccines. That is indisputable.
If you choose to forego modern medicine in favor of "alternative" practices, that is your decision. But to imply that your way is better, that is just plain wrong.
As for "forgoing modern medicine in favor of 'alternative' practices" that is so formulated, again, to load the arguement in your favor. You speak as if "modern medicne" were some monolithic structure of uniform quality and whose developments in the directions they took were inevitable. I disagree with all three characterizations. Rather than "alternative practices" which you seem to want to regard as lying outside of your holy "modern medicine" I would seek alternative practices,with just as much right to be called "modern medicine", but lacking the rather serious flaws that I believe affect certain asppects of what passes as modern medicine.
Doctors'strike in Israel may be good for health.
This is a report on the second such strike. The doctors also struck 30 some years ago with much the same result.
I read of a study recently (personally, I am skeptical of such "studies" but report for what it is worth) which applied regression analysis to local death rate and local concentration, per capita, of both doctors and nurses. The study found that death rate correlated positively with the concentration of doctors, but negatively with that of nurses.
Much better known is the recent report on mortality due to medical accidents, incompetence and malpractice. The number of deaths due to these causes was put between 70,000 and 100,000 per year. If you take the lower figure and add the (low) estimate of 30,000 deaths a year from prescription drugs, we can put at a minimum of 100,000 deaths per year, the number of deaths that result from application of "modern medicine", or "medical misadventure". My almanac lists only 4 causes of death that numbered more than 100,000 victims(in 1996). These are: heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, and pulmonary diseases. Accidents (medical ones presumably not included) came next at a little over 90,000. Thus, "medical misadventure" is the 5th leading cause of death in the U.S. Since the rate of death from all causes is just under 1%, this means that more than one death in every 25 is from "medical misadventure". Lest you jump to the conclusion that nevertheless more lives are saved than lost, remember the example of the doctors strike in Israel. Some people shouldn't go on strike. There is a similar story about the traffic cops in Brussels. They once went on strike and the people quickly saw that traffic flowed better without them. These cops were smarter than the Israeli doctors; they never struck again.
Quit putting words in my mouth, I never said it was "nothing but positively beneficial". I'm only saying modern medicine, properly practiced, is responsible for a longer life and a vast reduction in disease.
Your story about declining deaths in Israel has been quoted by almostevery chiropractor and alternative health practicioner I've seen. But even the article notes that the stats are only for a brief period. The obvious answer is that many treatments and procedures are put off, only to be done at a later time. For one example, let's say a person is diagnosed with an aortic aneurism. It must be operated on or it will eventually burst and the patient will die. However that kind of surgery is very dangerous, and the patient may be lost. However, if the procedure is not done, the patient will die soon eventually. So there are risky procedures being done every day, and, unfortunately, deaths.
This point is proven further by the fact that the article says that people were still going to their family doctors and ERs. But most dangerous procedures were not done.
The study found that death rate correlated positively with the concentration of doctors, but negatively with that of nurses.
The answer to this is that sick people tend to congregate where the doctors are, and sick people are more likely to die
By the way you didn't address the issue of "medical misadventure" being the 5th highest cause of death in the US.
That is so lame that even you have to realize it is lame. I no longer think you are a physician; you must work for an advertising firm that works for the AMA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.