as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:01 am

Well i'm glad i didnt lose any sleep over the latest predicted disaster. :roll:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:03 am

Well its official, another bogus threat of possible human disaster nothing more than B.S.. In today's paper a health expert called the Swine Flu threat dead. The boy cried wolf again. I was basically called an idiot for not getting a shot. I know people who got the shot and came down sick.

Here ismy 2nd post on this massive thread.

SQUACKEE


I'll take my chances, dont trust some big agency sticking some crap in me, just dont.

I'd like to see where everyone comes down on this.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby mcgato » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:42 am

I didn't get any of the shots either, and I'm still alive. Haven't gotten sick either, but then the winter flu season isn't over yet.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Postby Pego » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:08 am

Healthy, athletic males, or people with known immunity (indolence) to influenza could opt out of immunization and get away with it.

I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby guru » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:12 am

Pego wrote:I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.



Smallpox is not the flu, and you know it.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:45 am

Pego wrote:Healthy, athletic males, or people with known immunity (indolence) to influenza could opt out of immunization and get away with it.

I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.


Im not cocky against real threats, only false alarms. :D

Cant i be right once in my life. :cry:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby BisonHurdler » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:54 am

While the situation surely could've been handled better, my fear is that this will only fuel America's bizarre obsession with distrusting the medical community (who, you know, had all the facts out there on the CDC website and such for people to make reasonably informed opinions) rather than the media who regularly sensationalized and distorted many of the facts.
BisonHurdler
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby Pego » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:29 am

guru wrote:
Pego wrote:I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.



Smallpox is not the flu, and you know it.


Yes, I do. Just as you know perfectly well a difference between trace metals and poisoning, which did not prevent you from a gratuitous low blow against me. Your unsupported attack on physicians and hospitals was not too endearing either.

Continue with your antiscience and there will be a like response.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby guru » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:32 am

Except no one is equating smallpox with the flu. A lot of people are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol. So much so that the CDC and AAP requested removal from infant vaccines in 1999(which makers did).
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Marlow » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:08 pm

It all comes down to cold logic and the odds. You are more likely to stay healthy if you get the shot. Period.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby guru » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:10 pm

Marlow wrote: Period.



Not quite.

Short term - I agree. You are much less likely to get the disease you are being innoculated against. Long term is not so black and white.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Marlow » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:13 pm

guru wrote:
Marlow wrote: Period.

Not quite.
Short term - I agree. You are less likely to get the disease you are being innoculated against. Long term is not so black and white.

There is no substantive evidence that your immune system is or is not compromised by the FLU shot, so I repeat, the odds are WITH you if you get the shot.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Pego » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:37 pm

guru wrote:Except no one is equating smallpox with the flu. A lot of people are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol. So much so that the CDC and AAP requested removal from infant vaccines in 1999(which makers did).


This deserves an answer. First, "people are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol". You quoted one article in this regard on the other thread. While I have neither the tools, nor the time to evaluate their statistics, I read carefully the clinical part. It is erroneous at best, outright nonsense at worst. If this is representative of "people that are concerned about the health effects of Thimersol", you need to do better.

Secondly, the change in vaccines. While I am not familiar with the process, I would dare to bet that the reason for change would be the elimination of fear the crackpots caused to the parents as well as legal issues, rather than the merits of your argument.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:26 pm

Marlow wrote:It all comes down to cold logic and the odds. You are more likely to stay healthy if you get the shot. Period.


Are you sure, my bet is that the odds are that I have been exposed to something similar enough in my lifetime to not have to worry about it, as most people over 40. Odds are probably better that I would have a greater risk for something going wrong in getting a vaccination than to let mother nature take its course.

In other words, I think for me the odds of having any serious problems from this were very low and I would rather take that chance than to have any chance of something going wrong with a vaccination.

I know people who get flu shots every year and always seem to get sick, or at least far sicker than I do.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Postby Marlow » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:10 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
Marlow wrote:It all comes down to cold logic and the odds. You are more likely to stay healthy if you get the shot. Period.

Are you sure

Yes.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby steve » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:30 pm

guru wrote:
Pego wrote:I wonder, if SQUACKEE and mcgato were just as cocky in a smallpox epidemics. Actually, no, I don't wonder, I know, what they would do, sensible people as they are.



Smallpox is not the flu, and you know it.


The largest epidemic in history is the flu epidemic of 1918. In 2 years more than 50 million people were estimated to have died worldwide.

I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.

As for the idea that in 40 plus years your immune system has been exposed to enough antigens that there is likely crossover immunity.......just not true. Pick up an immunology text and an infectious disease text and you'll learn how acquired immunity works.
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby BisonHurdler » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:42 pm

odelltrclan wrote:I know people who get flu shots every year and always seem to get sick, or at least far sicker than I do.



I know an old man down the street that walks with a limp and uses a cane. Now I'm not saying the cane causes his leg to malfunction, but I never use a cane and my leg works just fine . . . seems a little suspicious.
BisonHurdler
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby guru » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:55 pm

Except I'll bet the old man got his cane after he got that limp.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby BisonHurdler » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:23 pm

guru wrote:Except I'll bet the old man got his cane after he got that limp.


Exactly. And it's quite possible that the reason these people are getting flu shots is because of an underlying predisposition to illness/weaker immune system in the first place.

It's like suggesting that multiple drugs for hypertension cause higher blood pressure, because all the people I see who have the highest blood pressures are on the most medications for it.
BisonHurdler
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:06 am

steve wrote:I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.
.


I knew someone would bring up this point. I have no proof if its valid or not, only a feeling it isnt.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:59 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
steve wrote:I would guess that the reason that the H1N1 was not so deadly this time was due to the many news reports, precautions, antivirals, and the vaccines. Those of you who didn't get the vaccine and didn't get the flu can thank herd immunity and everybody else's precautions.
.


I knew someone would bring up this point. I have no proof if its valid or not, only a feeling it isnt.


You can well be right, actually, you are probably right. There is a lot of indications that H1N1's virulence was overestimated by world health agencies. That does not change principles of this debate. If you look at the history of vaccinations, you'll find that the critics are always the same as the flat earthers, young age creationists, home schoolers, in other words the regressive anti-science, anti-intellectual crowd that loves benefits of scientific discoveries, but fights all new developments tooth and nail. That was the case with Jenner's first attempt to vaccinate over 200 years ago, it continues to this day. Let's face it, nothing in medicine is 100% safe. People died from ingesting an aspirin, people died from penicillin. Fringe medical practitioners (they are nowadays known as "alternative medicine") have fought immunization as well as sound pharmacology ever since its beginning, just pick up some chiropractic or homeopathic pamphlets. People keep forgetting that modern medicine (particularly pharmacology) is less than 150 years old. Let's compare life expectancy, neonatal and puerperal mortality 200 years ago to today. Remember, immunization has been a big part of it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby dukehjsteve » Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:12 am

Pego, your comments above are absolutely dead center correct on several different levels. Well said.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:06 am

dukehjsteve wrote:Pego, your comments above are absolutely dead center correct on several different levels. Well said.


You cant disagree with facts and i totally agree also.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby kuha » Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:52 am

Yes, absolutely. Well said, as usual...
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby gh » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:28 am

The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

It's so much easier to seek relief when one is ill than it is to think about getting ahead of the curve with solid preventitive measures.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby SQUACKEE » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:58 am

gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.

It's so much easier to seek relief when one is ill than it is to think about getting ahead of the curve with solid preventitive measures.


Not always a bad thing.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby guru » Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:22 pm

gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.



I know you said most, and not all, but I have taken painkillers once in my adult life - ibuprofen when I had a kidney stone back in '06. A full bottle of vicodin sits unopened in the medicine cabinet(why I let the doc talk me into getting it filled I have no idea).
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby mcgato » Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:31 pm

gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.
I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.
mcgato
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Hoboken

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:32 pm

mcgato wrote:
gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.
I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.


Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Postby steve » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:04 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
mcgato wrote:
gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.
I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.


Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.


I think you guys are underestimating the potential of the flu to cause another major epidemic. It's airborne, mutates rapidly to avoid immune surveillance, and, depending on the strain, can have a severe effect on otherwise yung healthy people.

I'm not certain but I think the recent H1N1 was a very similar flu virus to that which caused the 1918 epidemic. If a vaccine and antivirals/other precautions are only even 50% effective, it may be enough to stop the spread and limit deaths.

Then again, there did seem to be a lot of sensationalistic media coverage.
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby steve » Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:04 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
mcgato wrote:
gh wrote:The key to Dr. Pego's analysis is that the same people who decry the science behind immunization are very selective in their thinking and for the most part probably gobble pain-killers and antibiotics (part of the same golden age of medical therapy) without a thought.
I wish people would quit assuming that everyone who chose not to get a flu vaccine (me) also believe that all vaccines are bad. Vaccinations given in early childhood against a whole array of diseases are very good, as the child then should never get the disease in question, most of which can be very serious diseases. We don't see tons of people with polio in iron lungs for a reason. I doubt a flu vaccine is even 90% effective in preventing the flu for that season. And the flu is usually not a very serious disease for most healthy people.

Not getting a vaccine to have over a 99.999% chance of preventing a life in an iron lung is stupid.

Not getting a vaccine to have less than a 90% chance of preventing a few days of feeling crappy and throwing up a few times is a chance I'm willing to take. I figure with or without the flu vaccine that I'm going to get the flu every three to five years anyway.


Very well said ALSO

If I thought that getting the vaccine would have made a significant difference in my life, I would not hesitate. There had been plenty of statistics published about this flu long before the vaccines were available and it made me think twice about getting a flu vaccine, but that is it. This was not the 1918 flu. And it was more than the media that was the difference.

By the way, I do take antibiotics. . . . if I am sick enough to need to go to the doctor and they prescribe it. Fortunately that has not happened more than a couple of times in the last 30 years.


I think you guys are underestimating the potential of the flu to cause another major epidemic. It's airborne, mutates rapidly to avoid immune surveillance, and, depending on the strain, can have a severe effect on otherwise yung healthy people.

I'm not certain but I think the recent H1N1 was a very similar flu virus to that which caused the 1918 epidemic. If a vaccine and antivirals/other precautions are only even 50% effective, it may be enough to stop the spread and limit deaths.

Then again, there did seem to be a lot of sensationalistic media coverage.
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby gh » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:27 pm

Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby Pego » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:11 pm

gh wrote:Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.


I am pretty sure, I am the only poster here that actually saw cases of whooping cough. Those blue faces of children unable to stop hacking you don't forget. Parents that refuse the immunization should be made to watch these films for a while.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby catson52 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:18 pm

Pego wrote:
gh wrote:Whooping cough on record pace in California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

let's hope there's a decent response rate among those needing vaccinations.


I am pretty sure, I am the only poster here that actually saw cases of whooping cough. Those blue faces of children unable to stop hacking you don't forget. Parents that refuse the immunization should be made to watch these films for a while.


Fully agree - having seen some cases of kids with whooping cough.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby guru » Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:10 am

43% of US H1N1 vaccine supply to be destroyed after expiring unused, to the tune of over $300 million.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38033294/ns/health/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re:

Postby guru » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:41 pm

guru wrote:
gh wrote:The more high-risk people who get shot up, the fewer potential Typhoid Marys there are out there to spread it to the rest of the populace.

(again, this is speaking vaccination in general, not focusing on Swine Flu)



Nobody is saying "high risk" people shouldn't get the vaccine, including me in this very thread.

But in general, you have to think twice about getting something put into your body that has risk such that federal legislation specifically protects the manufacturers/providers from legal liability.



That protection may soon be coming to an end.

http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2009/b ... tz-v-wyeth

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... =D9IQCQ000
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby cornstarchwilson » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:09 am

90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.

The availability of clean, safe drinking water is a key. The safe disposal of waste is another.

The improvement in the health of doctor's patients went up significantly when the doctors began to wash their hands before each examination.

A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.

Is there any truth to the rumor that the company that produces most of the swine flu vaccines is owned by one of the Bush crew?
cornstarchwilson
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:15 am

cornstarchwilson wrote:90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.

While 'cleanliness' has made a HUGE difference in public health, it accounts for much less of the improvement than the introduction of sophisticated medicines and improved treatments/surgeries. The radical improvements made in the treatment of heart diseases and cancers is an example.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:20 am

cornstarchwilson wrote:90% of the improvement in health over the last 100 years resulted from improvement in hygiene not from any advancement in medical science.


Not remotely close to 90%


cornstarchwilson wrote:A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.


What do you consider "significant percentage?"

It never fails to amaze me how virtually every debate dealing with issues such as immunization or variable "alternative healing options" end up with somebody eager to blast traditional medicine or its providers.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: as our descent back into the Middle Ages continues

Postby DrJay » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:34 pm

And with wild claims made without data to back them up (see above quote, "A significant percentage of patients in hospitals die not from the ailment they were admitted for, but from ailments they contracted while staying in the hospital.")
Last edited by DrJay on Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests