Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They admitted it was up to 50 percent of all the published studies.
"Admitted", LOL! What does a journal editor know? He's not out there in the trenches doing research. He gave no evidence for "up to 50%".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
Childhood acquired chicken pox and mumps don't need boosters. Lifetime immunity is conferred.
I already posted one link about chickenpox. I guess I'll go find 10 more. CDC - Surveillance of Varicella - Chapter 17 - Vaccine Preventable Diseases "Immunity following varicella infection is considered to be long-lasting and second cases of varicella are thought to be rare. However, second cases may occur more commonly among immunocompetent persons than previously considered.[19,20]". http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4202.pdf "Most people are immune to chickenpox after having
the disease. However, although it is not common,
second cases of chickenpox can occur, particularly
in immunocompromised people." (Note: not only immunocompromised people, though) Chickenpox (Varicella) | Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library "Very rarely, a second case of chickenpox does occur. "
Ding, ding, ding, ding! Second varicella infections: are they more common than previously thought? - PubMed - NCBI "Second varicella infections: are they more common than previously thought?
RESULTS:Among varicella cases reported to the surveillance project, 4.5% of cases in 1995 and 13.3% of cases in 1999 reported previous varicella. More than 95% of first infections were physician diagnosed, epidemiologically linked to another case, or had a rash description consistent with varicella; the same was true for reported second infections. People who reported reinfections were generally healthy. There was a family history of repeat infections in 45% of people who reported reinfections.
CONCLUSIONS:Clinical varicella reinfections may occur more commonly than previously thought. Additional studies of the predictive value of a positive varicella history and laboratory studies of reported reinfections are indicated to guide varicella vaccination policy." Adults get chickenpox too, Physical conditions body, Health News, AsiaOne YourHealth "As an adult, you can contract chickenpox if you have not had it in the past, or, in rare cases, you may get it for a second time, albeit in a slightly different form."
Let's stop at five this time, K?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
Who ever has after naturally acquiring it in childhood?
Why would you want to subject yourself to such a dependency when public acquisition of the disease naturally earlier in life confers permanent immunity?
What about costs? What if you end up missing the booster for whatever reason? Willingly placing yourself in such a position is senseless.
That's simply not true.
They're marketing far more medicine for a "flu" fad, because it sounds more frequent and severe to their target audience.
I have a friend, an RN who works in public health, whose kids both got second cases of chickenpox at the same time.
Do keep in mind you can get chickenpox more than once. It is hardly a great dependency to get a minor shot a second time!
Any vaccine recommended by ACIP is covered for free at the point of service under the ACA. There are special programs to help those who are uninsured or underinsured (both less of a problem since the ACA). Cost is a red herring issue.
It is extremely true that people who are immunized have less severe disease when they do get a disease. For example, since we were talking about chickenpox: Chickenpox Vaccine "Up to 90% of people who receive the vaccine will not get chickenpox. People who get chickenpox after having the vaccine have a milder form of the disease."
Since one link is never enough for you, here are some more: https://www.healthychildren.org/Engl...d-to-Know.aspx "But if someone who has been vaccinated does get chickenpox, it is usually very mild. They will have fewer blisters, are less likely to have a fever, and will recover faster." Chickenpox After Vaccine "A breakthrough infection is usually very mild with fewer skin lesions (usually less than 50) lasting only a few days, with no fever or a low fever, and few other chickenpox symptoms."
Is three enough for this? The same is true of flu and pertussis.
<"Average" and "mean" are terms for the same statistic. If you cannot grasp that, you are the one with "limited analytical skills".>
Well I will admit that there are a lot of sources on line that don't seem to know what the difference is. There is SO much misinformation out there. You can findmore sources that say the Civil War started because of slavery than the real reason it started. It is pretty said. If you look deep enough you can find the truth. The authors of those sources are probably the products of a really DUMBED DOWN education.
When I learned what the "mean" was in school , the mean was NOT the average AT ALL. The mean in a graph of numbers each representing the age at which a person died in Victorian times would show a line before the age of 1 when many died in childbirth, rising a bit in the early years but then steeply rising to probably the 60s and 70s, 80s and 90s where it starts to plateau and continue for a longer than it did for any of the ages -- proving that most people back then lived well into their older years!
The mean or average is derived by adding up, in your case, the ages when everyone died and dividing by the number of people. You may be confusing "mean" and "median". Median means in this case, half died before a certain age, and half died after. The mean and median are seldom the same.
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm "The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers. The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order, so you may have to rewrite your list first. The "mode" is the value that occurs most often. If no number is repeated, then there is no mode for the list."
The mean or average is derived by adding up, in your case, the ages when everyone died and dividing by the number of people. You may be confusing "mean" and "median". Median means in this case, half died before a certain age, and half died after. The mean and median are seldom the same.
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm "The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers. The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order, so you may have to rewrite your list first. The "mode" is the value that occurs most often. If no number is repeated, then there is no mode for the list."
I know what the median is. I'm not talking the median or about finding a definitive age. The mean is supposed to be the number on a line graph with dots corresponding to the ages each person died -- where the graph plateaus for the longest--- as compared to any other plateau.
The point is there hasn't been that much change in life expectancy for 2000 years. A graph showing what I talked about above would give the mean age and except for infant deaths, you'd probably see it in the late 70s or 80s.
Before incubators nearly half of the babies born died in childbirth or before age 1. Now infant mortality is less than one percent so the numbers are SKEWED. The truth is, like I said in an earlier post, if you lived through the childhood diseases, the chances were good you'd live to a ripe old age well above the "average age"-- the term they use so often to try to have us think we are so much better off than we were back then. Some of us know better!
It is a big fat lie that we are living longer healthier lives is the point. With all of our technology we aren't any better off than pre incubator days. We spend obscene amounts of money on medicine and have NOTHING to show for it. It is pathetic and the scientists are now admitting it.
I know what the median is. I'm not talking the median or about finding a definitive age. The mean is supposed to be the number on a line graph with dots corresponding to the ages each person died -- where the graph plateaus for the longest--- as compared to any other plateau.
The point is there hasn't been that much change in life expectancy for 2000 years. A graph showing what I talked about above would give the mean age and except for infant deaths, you'd probably see it in the late 70s or 80s.
Before incubators nearly half of the babies born died in childbirth or before age 1. Now infant mortality is less than one percent so the numbers are SKEWED. The truth is, like I said in an earlier post, if you lived through the childhood diseases, the chances were good you'd live to a ripe old age well above the "average age"-- the term they use so often to try to have us think we are so much better off than we were back then. Some of us know better!
It is a big fat lie that we are living longer healthier lives is the point. With all of our technology we aren't any better off than pre incubator days. We spend obscene amounts of money on medicine and have NOTHING to show for it. It is pathetic and the scientists are now admitting it.
You're wrong about the mean.
As for longevity, "three score and 10" e.g. 70, was considered a rip old age. The Bible talks about living to see your children's children, e.g. to about 50. Now 70 is considered fairly young, lots of 70 yos are working. Many people live well into their 80s now, and 90s are not unusual.
As for longevity, "three score and 10" e.g. 70, was considered a rip old age. The Bible talks about living to see your children's children, e.g. to about 50. Now 70 is considered fairly young, lots of 70 yos are working. Many people live well into their 80s now, and 90s are not unusual.
"Now, 70 is considered fairly young"? Please!! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when making such absurd statements? Given that the life expectancy is around 75-78 ... the 70 year old is just about at the end of the line, and is fairly old, not fairly young.
And then you cite the Bible as suggesting the average age was 50? You seem to be ignoring the direct accounts of Biblical figures living extraordinarily long lives, counting up into multi hundreds ... 900+.
I don't know where you get this idea that you can create your own alternate reality, and expect everyone to accept it.
A tidy little section of book store for a discipline that to this day remains in the Dark Ages about physiology.
I cannot believe yo posted that on the internet for all the world to see. I guess, though, it is easier for you to believe the acid/alkali hogwash you have bought than to read and undestand a textbook on biochemistry running to over 1000 pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
Well I will admit that there are a lot of sources on line that don't seem to know what the difference is. There is SO much misinformation out there. You can findmore sources that say the Civil War started because of slavery than the real reason it started. It is pretty said. If you look deep enough you can find the truth. The authors of those sources are probably the products of a really DUMBED DOWN education.
When you find "a lot of sources" that contradict what you think is true, it's time to consider that what you think is true might not be.
Quote:
When I learned what the "mean" was in school , the mean was NOT the average AT ALL. The mean in a graph of numbers each representing the age at which a person died in Victorian times would show a line before the age of 1 when many died in childbirth, rising a bit in the early years but then steeply rising to probably the 60s and 70s, 80s and 90s where it starts to plateau and continue for a longer than it did for any of the ages -- proving that most people back then lived well into their older years!
I have heard of a few pregnancies at startlingly early ages, but I highly doubt anyone has died in childbirth before the age of one. If your mythical line plateaued, it would mean no one died after the age of 90.
You say the "mean in a graph of numbers ... would show a line". A mean is not a line.
What you are trying to describe is better described by a survival curve. That takes a group of people and tells us what percentage of the group is surviving as time passes.
Notice the sharp drop in the line for less than age 1 for 1901-02. In that time frame, about 12% of the population had died by age 1, and 40% before age 55. By 1949-1952, only 2% had died by age one, and only about 12% by age 55. By 2006, only 10% had died by age 55.
Vaccines were introduced against pertussis (1914), diphtheria (1926), and tetanus (1938). In 1900, diphtheria alone was one of the top ten causes of death in the US.
Figure 4 here shows survival curves from 1840 to 1980. In 1840, over half the population died by age 50 and about 30% by age 10. A lot of those kids died from vaccine preventable diseases.
"The high number of deaths amongst infants and small children prior to modern sanitation and antibiotics will skew the numbers so the average is quite low. So if say 10% of babies and toddlers die before the age of 5 that will dramatically shift the average life expectancy downward."
It should read, "The high number of deaths amongst infants and small children prior to modern sanitation, antibiotics, and vaccines will skew the numbers so the average is quite low." Yeah, if you keep people from dying when they are kids, the average increases. But you cannot ignore the dead kids when you discuss average age of death.
"Now, take into account that, up until the mid 20th century, the infant mortality rate was pretty high. Er...I mean, very high. In some areas nearly one out of every two infants died before their first birthday. And then, from one year old to five years that percentage dropped. From five to 10 it dropped again. And so on and so forth. In other words, the older you got, the chances are you would probably see life into your 60's or 70's or even your 80's, just like today. Of course, death for women during childbirth was quite high, but we, in our modern day, have been able to prevent that situation from happening almost completely."
Erm, yes, but you cannot ignore those dead kids. Sheesh.
Quote:
If your son is still alive after chemo that is great. He is one of the three percent that survive. There is no need to FORCE the rest of us into it who would rather get rid of our so called "dis-ease" in a more healthful regeneratve way. Is there? Or is there so much misery out there among all of you all that chose the conventional route you want to force everyone else into it?
Without chemo the death rate from childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia is 100%. With treatment it is now over 90% at five years and about 83% are alive at ten years. Those alive at ten years are probably cured forever. For my son it's been 27 years. For a parent to refuse treatment for that disease would be unconscionable.
Quote:
What do those authors say the other sides of opposites are such as acid/alkaline.
When it comes to sickness and pain (acid)vs wellness and healing (alkaline), there are only two sides. That comes from a biochemist and Naturopathic Doctor.
Since the "sickness and pain (acid)vs wellness and healing (alkaline)" concept is BS, they would say it is BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4
It's not just "one quote out of a blog."
"White matter, long thought to be passive tissue, actively affects how the brain learns and dysfunctions."
"Grey matter" is even baked into the 20th century dialogue of sentience and IQ.
You're not against science, are you?
Why can't you understand that science adapts as new data is available? As new tools become available, we discover new things.
Quote:
Who ever has after naturally acquiring it in childhood?
"there is evidence that true re-infection with chickenpox can occur
twenty-three healthy and apparently immunocompetent children with a history of 2-5 episodes of chickenpox were studied after repeat disease
of 11 patients studied within 8 weeks of repeat chickenpox (Early Group), mean antibody avidity was significantly lower (31.3 +/- 26.81) than control (65.1 +/- 12.38) (P < .001). Seven had low avidity antibody (< 30 percent) and an abundance of IgG3 which was a pattern like primary chickenpox, and 2/11 had high avidity antibody characteristic of anamnestic responses. Early Group patients and 12 others studied over 8 weeks after repeat disease (Late Group) showed avidity maturation and attrition of IgG subclass antibodies other than IgG1
at least nine children failed to show VZV-specific secondary (memory) immune responses early in the course of repeat disease. It is possible that failure to maintain or evoke a secondary immune response could explain their susceptibility to repeat chickenpox."
"Three patients previously known to possess mumps serum antibodies subsequently developed clinical parotitis and showed a diagnostic fourfold rise in mumps V antibody."
"Natural" disease does not always provide permanent immunity.
Quote:
Why would you want to subject yourself to such a dependency when public acquisition of the disease naturally earlier in life confers permanent immunity?
Because you do not get sick when you take the vaccine, and if it does fail, the resulting illness is usually milder.
Why do you want kids to get sick with preventable diseases?
Quote:
What about costs? What if you end up missing the booster for whatever reason? Willingly placing yourself in such a position is senseless.
Every child can get vaccinated at low cost or even no cost. One of the features of the ACA is no cost sharing for vaccines, including adult vaccines. Also, the cost of a child getting sick with a vaccine preventable disease is far greater than the cost of the vaccine.
Quote:
I'd also mention the risks of vaccines, but you're dismissive of them.
Not dismissive. I just know that serious risks are very, very, very rare.
Quote:
That's simply not true.
Yes, it is. In the recent Disney measles outbreak some of the vaccinated people who got it had the rash last only an hour:
"Your antibody levels might not be high enough to completely protect you, but they’ll still help—the CDC has seen vaccinated patients with measles who only get a rash for about an hour, says Wallace. And, importantly for octogenarians (whose immune systems are weaker) and infants, vaccinated patients are much less likely to transmit the disease to other people."
Case reports of two vaccinated physicians who had measles (and did not give it to anyone else):
"Children with [modified varicella after vaccination] are frequently asymptomatic, and their disease is characterized by having fewer lesions, less fever, and lasting fewer days than natural varicella. When a case of MVLS occurs there are few secondary cases, suggesting that it is infrequently transmitted. Sequelae such as secondary bacterial infection, cerebellar ataxia, encephalitis, and pneumonia occur infrequently.
Quote:
They're marketing far more medicine for a "flu" fad, because it sounds more frequent and severe to their target audience.
That may be true. It still does not mean the drug company thinks a cold is the flu.
"Now, 70 is considered fairly young"? Please!! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when making such absurd statements? Given that the life expectancy is around 75-78 ... the 70 year old is just about at the end of the line, and is fairly old, not fairly young.
In 2010, a person who was 70 could expect to live, on average, another 16.33 years.
I know what the median is. I'm not talking the median or about finding a definitive age. The mean is supposed to be the number on a line graph with dots corresponding to the ages each person died -- where the graph plateaus for the longest--- as compared to any other plateau.
The point is there hasn't been that much change in life expectancy for 2000 years. A graph showing what I talked about above would give the mean age and except for infant deaths, you'd probably see it in the late 70s or 80s.
Before incubators nearly half of the babies born died in childbirth or before age 1. Now infant mortality is less than one percent so the numbers are SKEWED. The truth is, like I said in an earlier post, if you lived through the childhood diseases, the chances were good you'd live to a ripe old age well above the "average age"-- the term they use so often to try to have us think we are so much better off than we were back then. Some of us know better!
It is a big fat lie that we are living longer healthier lives is the point. With all of our technology we aren't any better off than pre incubator days. We spend obscene amounts of money on medicine and have NOTHING to show for it. It is pathetic and the scientists are now admitting it.
Please stop with your screwy math. The mumbling about plateaus is getting embarrassing. Life expectancy has indeed changed, because more of us do live through the childhood diseases - by not having them at all.
Yes, the numbers are SKEWED because now our children do not die in large numbers before the age of five. You cannot just ignore infant and childhood deaths! Babies and children no longer die in large numbers because of modern medicine. A big factor in that is vaccines.
It is a big fat lie that we are living longer healthier lives is the point. With all of our technology we aren't any better off than pre incubator days. We spend obscene amounts of money on medicine and have NOTHING to show for it. It is pathetic and the scientists are now admitting it.
It certainly is, and no one should be so uninformed, or so lacking in basic reasoning skills to simply accept such claims without so much as a question.
From family accounts of great grandparents, to so many notable historic figures who lived very long lives, there is evidence all around that would demand scrutinizing such nonsense about an average age of 40. The examples are endless, such as Socrates who was 70 when he was executed (399 BC), as well as so many of the ancient Greeks. Our own historic figures show up here too, like Benjamin Franklin who lived to be 85, or Thomas Jefferson, 84, or John Adams, 91 .... the list goes on and on.
So tell me folks ... how can those of you who regurgitate this nonsense about people dying young in the past, make it through school being taught about all these gray haired old men in history, and not at least pause and think for 5 seconds?
Of course there were people who did die at very young ages, just as happens today. While many died in the past who could have been saved with modern day medicines like antibiotics, this does not alter the fact that generally, people who enjoyed a conducive environment, with ample food and clean water, and good shelter lived just as long back then as we do today. Today, we just have many more people who do not suffer the hardships of the commoner in days past. Sanitation, nutrition and clean water, shelter, and ample heating is the biggest difference, not modern medicine.
This is pretty easy stuff ... not rocket science ... just common sense and routine awareness
Please stop with your screwy math. The mumbling about plateaus is getting embarrassing. Life expectancy has indeed changed, because more of us do live through the childhood diseases - by not having them at all.
Yes, the numbers are SKEWED because now our children do not die in large numbers before the age of five. You cannot just ignore infant and childhood deaths! Babies and children no longer die in large numbers because of modern medicine. A big factor in that is vaccines.
Are you not aware of the fact that the infant mortality rate in the United States has risen (bad) from just a few decades ago, and is higher now than 25 European and other developed countries?
So here we have all these claims about the great job modern medicine is doing, yet the results don't support such claims.
Surely, with such modern technology, modern medicines, across the board hospital care for everyone, we're seeing an increase in infant death rates, why?
The answer is, we are not getting healthier ... and we are doing some really crazy stuff like injecting viruses into one hour old infants, under the insane premise that it is good for them, while calling anyone who questions that insanity a nut! That's a big part of the why.
It certainly is, and no one should be so uninformed, or so lacking in basic reasoning skills to simply accept such claims without so much as a question.
From family accounts of great grandparents, to so many notable historic figures who lived very long lives, there is evidence all around that would demand scrutinizing such nonsense about an average age of 40. The examples are endless, such as Socrates who was 70 when he was executed (399 BC), as well as so many of the ancient Greeks. Our own historic figures show up here too, like Benjamin Franklin who lived to be 85, or Thomas Jefferson, 84, or John Adams, 91 .... the list goes on and on.
So tell me folks ... how can those of you who regurgitate this nonsense about people dying young in the past, make it through school being taught about all these gray haired old men in history, and not at least pause and think for 5 seconds?
Of course there were people who did die at very young ages, just as happens today. While many died in the past who could have been saved with modern day medicines like antibiotics, this does not alter the fact that generally, people who enjoyed a conducive environment, with ample food and clean water, and good shelter lived just as long back then as we do today. Today, we just have many more people who do not suffer the hardships of the commoner in days past. Sanitation, nutrition and clean water, shelter, and ample heating is the biggest difference, not modern medicine.
This is pretty easy stuff ... not rocket science ... just common sense and routine awareness
Benjamin Franklin's son died of smallpox at age 14.
Jefferson's wife was a 23 year old widow. Her son by her first marriage died at age 3.
"During the ten years of their marriage, Martha [Jefferson]bore six children: Martha, called Patsy, (1772–1836); Jane (1774–1775); an unnamed son (1777); Mary Wayles, called Polly, (1778–1804); Lucy Elizabeth (1780–1781); and Lucy Elizabeth (1782–1785). Only Martha and Mary survived to adulthood.
A few months after the birth of her last child, Martha died on September 6, 1782, at the age of 33."
"On October 25, 1764, five days before his 29th birthday, Adams married Abigail Smith (1744–1818), his third cousin and the daughter of a Congregational minister, Rev. William Smith, at Weymouth, Massachusetts. Their children were Abigail (1765–1813); future president John Quincy Adams (1767–1848); Susanna (1768–1770); Charles (1770–1800); Thomas Boylston (1772–1832); and Elizabeth (stillborn 1777).
Abigail died of typhoid fever at the age of 73.
Their daughter Abigail died at 48 of breast cancer.
Their sons died at ages 30 and 59.
From Find A Grave:
"Susanna, or "Suky" as she was affectionately called, was the youngest daughter of John and Abigail Adams. She was baptized on New Year's Day, 1769 by Dr. Samuel Cooper at the Brattle Street Church. It is not known what childhood illness brought Suky's life to an untimely end, but she was adored by her parents; in one letter from John Adams to Abigail he asks her to "kiss my little Suky for me." The baby's death was horrific for both parents, even in an age when childhood deaths were rather the "norm", and John Adams never spoke Suky's name again except once, many years later. Suky had been named in honor of John's mother, Susanna Boylston Adams."
George and Martha Washington had no children of their own. Martha had previously been married and had four children. She was a 28 year old widow when they married. Her first two children died at ages 2 and 3. Her son Jack died of typhus at age 26. Her daughter Patsy died at 17 from epilepsy.
Yes, some people lived to advanced ages. most did not.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 06-27-2015 at 10:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
