/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10581623]

Anti-vaxxers make so much sense, but what has caused the decrease in disease in the last hundred years or so if it wasn't vaccines? Could it be sanitary practices? Serious responses only please.

[Anonymous No.10581629]

>>10581623
The decrease in disease mortality came from improved medical care and antibiotics. The decrease in disease incidence, in the case of transmissible diseases, is due to immunization. The incidence of diseases which are primarily waterborne or foodborne has decreased as a result of improved hygiene practices.

[Anonymous No.10581632]

>This decline contributed to a sharp drop in infant and child mortality (1,2) and to the 29.2-year increase in life expectancy (2). In 1900, 30.4% of all deaths occurred among children aged less than 5 years; in 1997, that percentage was only 1.4%. In 1900, the three leading causes of death were pneumonia, tuberculosis (TB), and diarrhea and enteritis, which (together with diphtheria) caused one third of all deaths (Figure 2). Of these deaths, 40% were among children aged less than 5 years (1). In 1997, heart disease and cancers accounted for 54.7% of all deaths, with 4.5% attributable to pneumonia, influenza, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (2). Despite this overall progress, one of the most devastating epidemics in human history occurred during the 20th century: the 1918 influenza pandemic that resulted in 20 million deaths, including 500,000 in the United States, in less than 1 year--more than have died in as short a time during any war or famine in the world (3). HIV infection, first recognized in 1981, has caused a pandemic that is still in progress, affecting 33 million people and causing an estimated 13.9 million deaths (4). These episodes illustrate the volatility of infectious disease death rates and the unpredictability of disease emergence.

Public health action to control infectious diseases in the 20th century is based on the 19th century discovery of microorganisms as the cause of many serious diseases (e.g., cholera and TB). Disease control resulted from improvements in sanitation and hygiene, the discovery of antibiotics, and the implementation of universal childhood vaccination programs. Scientific and technologic advances played a major role in each of these areas and are the foundation for today's disease surveillance and control systems. Scientific findings also have contributed to a new understanding of the evolving relation between humans and microbes (5).

From
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm

[Anonymous No.10581649]

>>10581629
>>10581632
>"How can the decrease in disease be explained without vaccines?"
>" Sanitation and vaccines."

[Anonymous No.10581666]

>>10581649
It's almost like the premis in OP is flawed.

[Anonymous No.10581685]

>>10581623
the pink book refered to in the pic also mentions 4 other vaccines, 3 of which have no death as adverse effect.

[Anonymous No.10581693]

>>10581685
By the time you admit some vaccines are more risky than others, you're already beyond what's considered acceptable dialogue in America.

[Anonymous No.10582851]

>>10581623
nobody is questioning vaccine efficacy, many anti-vaxxers even believe they do their intended job depending on which vaccine you are asking about, mumps and pertussis are pretty fucked on their efficacy but we dont see much chicken pox or measles (not nearly the same amount).

You are confusing efficacy and safety. Many vaccines do their intended job of suppressing the symptoms of a disease but you still get sick from them and require future doses to continue to be "protected'.

The problem lies in, are the vaccines more dangerous than the disease themselves? And we have absolutely no data on this.
No injury reporting system
No vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies
No long term studies
No vaccine on the schedule has gone through a placebo study
No study of cumulative health of the vaccine schedule
No studies on giving pregnant women vaccines

So your question doesn't really matter to anyone questioning vaccines, it is actually the only argument of pro-vaxxers who refuse to answer the follow up question of "Do vaccines injure/kill more than the disease they aim to prevent"? And so far the science is telling us no or it hasn't been done.

[Anonymous No.10582958]

>>10582851
I'm not well researched enough to fully evaluate your statement, but the people who parrot that vaccines cause autism (including the president) aren't doing the "actual investigation" proposal any favors.

[Anonymous No.10582977]

>>10582958
It's the absurdity that the vaccine industry has looked into only 1 vaccine out of several dozen given yet has the audacity to say "Vaccine(s) PLURAL, do not cause autism". If you even go to their own website where they make this claim their own links say "No science has been done".
There are many studies that actually find a link between vaccines and autism, one of which is the CDC's own study that they intentionally omitted the results of because it would favor Wakefield and we only found out about it 20 years after the fact because one of the leading co authors felt so guilty he had to speak to someone about it.
Pic related.

We have been waiting for this man to speak to congress since 2015, the people are just speaking out like they did about smoking, about vioxx, and about pharma in general.

[Anonymous No.10583547]

>>10581623
>Anti-vaxxers make so much sense
If the data they rely on wasn't bullshit that would be.

[Anonymous No.10583787]

>>10581666
It's not though. Anyways, one way to completely rule out that pharma companies are motivated by greed is for the government to nationalize and seize their capabilities altogether. No more pharma companies. The business of protecting us from disease should be run by the government, same as the police who protect us from crime or the animal control officers who protect us from dangerous animals. On principle, dangerous diseases might as well fall under the same umbrella.

[Anonymous No.10584322]

>>10583787
>The business of protecting us from disease should be run by the government,
Yikes

[Anonymous No.10584451]

>>10581693
this

[Anonymous No.10584662]

>>10584322
the research is already paid for by your taxes. Enjoy giving freebies to the people who scam you.

Fucking cuck

[Anonymous No.10584936]

>>10581693
Most people can at least agree on extending the vaccine schedule, and it's a start. There's really no logical argument against extending it other than "muh convenience".