Steve
Member
This is actually a huge problem with you, Hurm. That is not a fact.
Wanna run for President Hurm? ;)
This is actually a huge problem with you, Hurm. That is not a fact.
This is actually a huge problem with you, Hurm. That is not a fact. At least to my knowledge. Can you show any data to prove that millions died from SV-40 contamination?
Around 98 million people were vaccinated from 1955 to 1963 with doses that were contaminated with SV-40. That is a fact.
That is certainly true of Polio. Haven't researched other diseases enough to argue. Deaths from polio had decreased 90% by the time the first Polio vaccines became available. As soon as the Polio vaccination first became available, it was suddenly halted after hundreds of people contracted polio from some bad batches of the vaccine and were paralyzed. Fear of the vaccine spread rapidly. Vaccination campaigns were carried out in certain areas, but were far from universal. Yet the Polio infection rate continued the plummet which began before vaccination began. By 1980 when there was major push to eradicate polio with universal vaccination, Polio was already almost non-existent.
Remember it's polio deaths that had declined by 90%, not cases. If you search my name and polio i posted a graph awhile back.Hurm,
A buddy of mine mentioned this to me a ways back and I've been meaning to look into it ever since. He could not recall where he originally got the info. Do you recommend any references where you came across this info? Also, was it really as high as 90%!?
Hurm,
A buddy of mine mentioned this to me a ways back and I've been meaning to look into it ever since. He could not recall where he originally got the info. Do you recommend any references where you came across this info? Also, was it really as high as 90%!?
I'd like to hear it.In terms of fitness of the species, there is a serious point there too.
Hurm,
A buddy of mine mentioned this to me a ways back and I've been meaning to look into it ever since. He could not recall where he originally got the info. Do you recommend any references where you came across this info? Also, was it really as high as 90%!?
Is a population that has disease, and survives, stronger as a whole? I'm unsure, and haven't really found a satisfactory answer.I'd like to hear it.
Is a population that uses modern medicine to prevent prenatal deaths, early childhood disease, and other forms of "interference" with naturally occurring lethal consequences stronger as a whole?Is a population that has disease, and survives, stronger as a whole? I'm unsure, and haven't really found a satisfactory answer.
Consider as one example:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...xpert-answers/hygiene-hypothesis/faq-20058102
Is a population that uses modern medicine to prevent prenatal deaths, early childhood disease, and other forms of "interference" with naturally occurring lethal consequences stronger as a whole?
I don't get how this parsing is attempted between "good" and "bad" forms of life extending technology. Seems rather binary, and as a result, a rather self evident equation.
That doesn't even touch on the rather horrid ethical question inferred by your question. Population control and/or selection through non-use of live saving technology as a policy?
I suspect that there is always a danger that medical scientists and drug companies will push past the optimum point - as seems to be the case with statins!Is a population that uses modern medicine to prevent prenatal deaths, early childhood disease, and other forms of "interference" with naturally occurring lethal consequences stronger as a whole?
The real problem is that medical science is extraordinarily fond of manipulating the results of studies to mean what they want them to mean!I don't get how this parsing is attempted between "good" and "bad" forms of life extending technology. Seems rather binary, and as a result, a rather self evident equation.
My point is I don't believe its a coherent question unless you are willing to make it "all or none". Why ask the question of vaccines and not of all other forms of human technology/ingenuity? After all we've been using our noggins since the dawn of time to try and foil all the various lethalities around us.I never said the questions were easy or comfortable.
Perhaps god/MAL put these diseases on the earth for a reason? He seems to have devised some pretty brutal methods of "population control" ;)
This seems a different argument to me. (e.g., greed)I suspect that there is always a danger that medical scientists and drug companies will push past the optimum point - as seems to be the case with statins!
The real problem is that medical science is extraordinarily fond of manipulating the results of studies to mean what they want them to mean!
http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/
David
Fair enough.My point is I don't believe its a coherent question unless you are willing to make it "all or none". Why ask the question of vaccines and not of all other forms of human technology/ingenuity? After all we've been using our noggins since the dawn of time to try and foil all the various lethalities around us.
Well greed - i.e. money is at the bottom of a lot of this. Pharmaceutical companies want to make money, and they make vaccines!This seems a different argument to me. (e.g., greed)