|
Paul, I'm a little concerned about the attacking voice of this posting. Especially from one that appears to be a voice that is listened to on this list. I'm also concerned about the making forceful shutdown statements as if they were fact when they are simply opinion. There is a significant body of "knowledge" and scientific community that sees things quite differently. I have included some snippets below to highlight this but there is much, much more available. (most of the best (from a scientific standpoint) material I have only seen in print and therefore it is harder to post it. But I have seen hardcore science papers that substantiate what i have placed below. As a friend of mine who is an emergency room surgeon recently reminded me, it is a commonly accepted "fact" that the vast majority of the decrease in mortality that occurred from the late 1800s to date is actually the result, primarily of improvements in hygiene and water/sewage treatment. Further, there is a strong body of research that seriously throws into question the efficacy (and even safety) of the vaccination program. The graphs below are for Australia but i have seen similar ones for North America as well. Further the statement: "ONE THIRD of all women who delivered babies in the hospitals of the time died of "childbirth fever". Think about that FACT." Is a profound one. And the statement is probably accurate. However, consider that nowhere near 1/3 of all childbirths ended in the death of the mother. That rate was only that high in the early hospital births. As for advocating the use of DDT, to take such a stand in the face of truly overwhelming evidence of the dangers absolutely baffles me. On a completely different note: The statement "It has side issues, but compared to human life, they are side issues." clearly implies a belief that human life is more valuable than the survival of the Earth's biosphere. I would offer the exercise to all, to consider the validity of that viewpoint. The Earth will continue just fine in lush, vibrant life, without humans. The reverse is not true. And a final consideration: We are now facing overwhelming overpopulation on a worldwide scale, with the population continuing to grow at an alarming (and increasing) rate. Much of this is due to the decline in mortality rates. While i am very affected by human suffering and death, i must question whether it is actually a boon to humankind to have such runaway growth. Certainly in animal populations such unchecked growth results in decline and sometimes extinction of a species as the resources it relies on disappear. I'm not stating hard opinions but rather raising questions to consider. In fact, i wouldn't be alive myself without modern medicine as i was the 2nd Rh+ child of an Rh- mother and would have died without a transfusion. duff ----- "The mortality decline since the late nineteenth century seems to have been the result particularly of improvements in public health and sanitation, especially better water supplies and sewage disposal. The improving diet, clothing, and shelter of the American population over the period since about 1870 also played a role. Specific medical interventions beyond more general environmental public health measures were not statistically important until well into the twentieth century. It is difficult to disentangle the separate effects of these factors. But it is clear that much of the decline was due to rapid reductions in specific infectious and parasitic diseases, including tuberculosis, pneumonia, bronchitis, and gastrointestinal infections, as well as such well-known lethal diseases as cholera, smallpox, diphtheria, and typhoid fever. Nineteenth-century cities were especially unhealthy places, particularly the largest ones. This began to change by about the 1890s, when the largest cities instituted new public works sanitation projects (such as piped water, sewer systems, filtration and chlorination of water) and public health administration. They then experienced rapid improvements in death rates. As for the present, rural-urban mortality differentials have converged and largely disappeared. This, unfortunately, is not true of the differentials between whites and blacks." Maris A. Vinovskis, ed., Studies in American Historical Demography (1979); Robert V. Wells, Uncle Sam's Family: Issues in and Perspectives on American Demographic History (1985). from: The Reader's Companion to American History http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_009700_birthrateand.htm http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/index.htm http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html (graphs of decline of illness) GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US
The above graphs, based on the official death numbers as recorded in the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, are taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma" and represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease in Australia. They clearly show that vaccines had nothing to do with the decline in death rates. (Note: Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact same scenario as above). http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm -------------------- everett...@aol.com wrote: * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist |
- Re: Open Space - a minimum? - efficacy of modern medicine R. Duff Doel
