Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

[Guest guest]

I've also heard extraordinarily high child mortality figures being

quoted for the 1800's. I'm also interested in what others may know

about this.

A quick search in google found this New Jersey health statistics page

comparing 1897 to 1997:

http://www.state.nj.us/health/chs/18971997.htm

It states " Additionally, the infant mortality rate is much lower -

224.2 (in 1897) versus 6.4 (in 1997) (per 1,000 live births) "

I believe that infant mortality is limited to children dying before

one year of age. So I guess it is plausible that 50% of children were

dying before their 5th birthday.

I'm wondering what were the leading causes for infant and childhood

death back then. Was it primarily related to sanitation, hygiene, and

nutrition? If so, then it's understandable that the mortality rates

could have dropped drastically in the past 100 years without vaccines.

This page indicates that water filtration and chlorination account for

half of the 30% decline in urban death rates between 1900 and 1940:

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB & template=/ContentManagement/ContentD\

isplay.cfm & ContentID=12388

Also, what was the percentage of premature births? This rate may be

similar over the years, but I'm sure a greater percentage of premature

births are surviving today compared to 100 years ago.

I've also read that the definition of " live birth " is different among

countries. Does a change in this definition between now and 100 years

ago significantly affect the numbers?

anxiously awaiting to hear what others know about this subject...

>

> according to this site

> http://www.geocities.com/eastramaponurses/immunizations.html 100 years

> ago half of the kids died before age 5. is that TRUE????

>

[Guest guest]

,

I would like to know as well since most of my friends cite this as the main

reason I should vaccinate my kids. They keep saying, " vaccinations have kept

our children out of the graveyard " and my MIL told me that her husband's baby

sister died from whooping cough at 8 months. No wonder they freaked when we

said no more DPT shots.

Yet my nephew is fully vaxed for pertussis and shows no " immunity " .

Sheri B.

jagui999 <aguiguy@...> wrote:

I've also heard extraordinarily high child mortality figures being

quoted for the 1800's. I'm also interested in what others may know

about this.

A quick search in google found this New Jersey health statistics page

comparing 1897 to 1997:

http://www.state.nj.us/health/chs/18971997.htm

It states " Additionally, the infant mortality rate is much lower -

224.2 (in 1897) versus 6.4 (in 1997) (per 1,000 live births) "

I believe that infant mortality is limited to children dying before

one year of age. So I guess it is plausible that 50% of children were

dying before their 5th birthday.

I'm wondering what were the leading causes for infant and childhood

death back then. Was it primarily related to sanitation, hygiene, and

nutrition? If so, then it's understandable that the mortality rates

could have dropped drastically in the past 100 years without vaccines.

This page indicates that water filtration and chlorination account for

half of the 30% decline in urban death rates between 1900 and 1940:

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB & template=/ContentManagement/ContentD\

isplay.cfm & ContentID=12388

Also, what was the percentage of premature births? This rate may be

similar over the years, but I'm sure a greater percentage of premature

births are surviving today compared to 100 years ago.

I've also read that the definition of " live birth " is different among

countries. Does a change in this definition between now and 100 years

ago significantly affect the numbers?

anxiously awaiting to hear what others know about this subject...

>

> according to this site

> http://www.geocities.com/eastramaponurses/immunizations.html 100 years

> ago half of the kids died before age 5. is that TRUE????

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheri

Yes, I'm learning to keep my mouth shut around friends and family now.

Maybe my perspective on vaccines will help you defend your position to

your friends:

I've been looking at vaccinations from a purely risk vs benefit

perspective and I am annoyed at the generalized statistics that are

being thrown out at parents.

Sometimes, the statistics being touted are global which do not

represent a fair risk assessment for my son who is breast-fed, has a

healthy immune system, and does not live in a third world village.

Even national statistics can be misleading when it comes to certain

viruses as my son does not live in a " high risk " inner-city neighborhood.

When you dig deep enough to discover the relative risk of your own

child contracting a given virus taking into account the effectiveness

of the vaccine for that virus also taking into account the actual risk

of adverse effects of the given virus... you begin to see that it

usually appears obvious that it is safer to skip the vaccine for that

virus.

The comments I've been reading recently by policy makers seems to

indicate that we need ONE global policy for everyone because we cannot

offer a safer, more expensive option to one group (i.e. USA) while

offering a cheaper/riskier option to another group (i.e. third world

countries).

On one hand, I agree. If something is not acceptable to human beings

in the USA, then it should not be acceptable to human beings in third

world counties. Scientists should focus on discovering a safer

solution that is also inexpensive - You can't tell me that this is as

good as it gets.

On the OTHER hand, I completely disagree because the " one policy fits

all " statement does not take into account the relative risk in each

region of the world. If I were in an African village, and I had a

choice between receiving an inexpensive vaccine which has a 1% chance

of causing autism in my child, or not receiving a vaccine at all and

having a 20% chance of not surviving the first year... I think I'd

take my chances with the vaccine.

I understand that until a safer inexpensive preservative is

discovered, that it is better for certain people in certain regions of

the world to continue using thimerosal and taking combined vaccines.

But here in the USA, our risk is different. You can't expect us to

use the same risk equation.

Just my opinions.

> >

> > according to this site

> > http://www.geocities.com/eastramaponurses/immunizations.html 100 years

> > ago half of the kids died before age 5. is that TRUE????

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Just wanted to point out that autism isn't the only risk associated with

vaccines (I'm sure you're well aware of that). A child in an African village

receiving vaccines has much to be concerned about in addition to autism.

Vaccines damage the immune system, something no one needs, much less someone

who's immune system is already greatly compromised by poor living conditions,

poor nutrition, etc.

The money spent on vaccinating people in Third World countries would be much

better spent trying to improve their dreadful living conditions so children

might have a better chance surviving their first year of life with a stronger

immune system.

Vaccines are never the answer to health for anyone. Health comes from a strong

immune system, which can't be attained from drugs.

Just my 2 cents.

Kay

Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

On the OTHER hand, I completely disagree because the " one policy fits

all " statement does not take into account the relative risk in each

region of the world. If I were in an African village, and I had a

choice between receiving an inexpensive vaccine which has a 1% chance

of causing autism in my child, or not receiving a vaccine at all and

having a 20% chance of not surviving the first year... I think I'd

take my chances with the vaccine.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sara --

It's probably close. 100 years ago, many kids died within the first few

years due to unsanitary conditions, diseases that ran rampant (pneumonia,

diarrhea, TB, scarlet fever, small pox) - which those unsanitary conditions

did Not help, and lack of medical attention/knowledge. And then many of

those kids that survived died in farm, gun, and other accidents.

Plus " medicine " was quite crude - I wonder how many lives that took.

In my own family, my grandfather born at the turn of the last century had 3

siblings, only he and 1 sister lived to adulthood -- one brother drowned in

a pond at a young age, and a baby sister died of ? disease.

On 4/28/06, Sara <nurturinghome@...> wrote:

>

> according to this site

> http://www.geocities.com/eastramaponurses/immunizations.html 100 years

> ago half of the kids died before age 5. is that TRUE????

>

Health & blessings,

CREATING HEALTHIER LIVES...

one family at a time!

http://www.Shaklee.net/ExcitingHealth

1-866-312-8064

http://www.TheMomPack.com

[Guest guest]

>

>On the OTHER hand, I completely disagree because the " one policy fits

>all " statement does not take into account the relative risk in each

>region of the world. If I were in an African village, and I had a

>choice between receiving an inexpensive vaccine which has a 1% chance

>of causing autism in my child, or not receiving a vaccine at all and

>having a 20% chance of not surviving the first year... I think I'd

>take my chances with the vaccine.

Hi

Sounds like you still think vaccines give immunity. They do NOT. They

inject a chronic case of the illness into you and therefore you cannot get

an acute case and it looks like you are immune. But you are not, you are

sick with a chronic case.

And they are at even more at risk due to immune system problems already

from parasites, drinking contaminated water and poor food (and much

pesticide laden)

The answer is not a vaccine that will add insult to injury, but assist them

to better their lives - stop raping the 3rd world for profit at the expense

of people's lives and livelihoods.

>

>I understand that until a safer inexpensive preservative is

>discovered, that it is better for certain people in certain regions of

>the world to continue using thimerosal and taking combined vaccines.

>But here in the USA, our risk is different. You can't expect us to

>use the same risk equation.

And it is not only about thimerosal.

Remember - hey don't give immunity................even though they try to

tell you they do

There are many problems with vaccines.

Mercury, the preservative, is one of the dangers, but IS NOT the only

danger with vaccines.

1. Mercury has NOT totally been removed from vaccines

A. Those that say mercury-free, private testing has shown there is still

mercury

B. Many still have a trace of mercury

C. And many have full amounts of mercury - many flu vax (adult & children)

DT, tD, etc.

2. Mercury is NOT the only problem with vaccine

3. Other problems with vaccines

Contamination with mycoplasma and bacteria

Contamination with monkey viruses

Contamination with RNA, DNA

Aluminum and other adjuvants

The new preservative replacing mercury in some vaccines - 2PE

Other additives in vaccines - vary according to the vaccine - msg,

formaldyhyde, antibiotics, phenol, sorbitol, gelatin and more

The antigen itself and how it effects the immune system

The whole theory is in error - stimulation of antibodies does not give

immunity - antibodies do not mean immunity - the are signs of exposure, but

one small aspect of the immune system

No long term research

No comparison in research with placebo group - only another vaccinated group

Ignoring post marketing data of reactions, injury and death

No individualization - one size fits all

No screening for immune problems and allergies

Children and adults have reacted with injury and death after MMR which

never had mercury in it>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

Kay,

While I totally agree with you and Sheri about this, the question for that

child in the African village is what do you do in the meantime when they don't

have good drinking water or sanitation? That seems to be the real dilemma.

Saw on PBS that Mexico had a cholera epidemic until they spent millions, if

not billions, on a water infrastructure. This took years, obviously.

What is the solution until those goals are achieved?

Sheri B.

Kay <dr-ky@...> wrote:

Hi ,

Just wanted to point out that autism isn't the only risk associated with

vaccines (I'm sure you're well aware of that). A child in an African village

receiving vaccines has much to be concerned about in addition to autism.

Vaccines damage the immune system, something no one needs, much less someone

who's immune system is already greatly compromised by poor living conditions,

poor nutrition, etc.

The money spent on vaccinating people in Third World countries would be much

better spent trying to improve their dreadful living conditions so children

might have a better chance surviving their first year of life with a stronger

immune system.

Vaccines are never the answer to health for anyone. Health comes from a strong

immune system, which can't be attained from drugs.

Just my 2 cents.

Kay

Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

On the OTHER hand, I completely disagree because the " one policy fits

all " statement does not take into account the relative risk in each

region of the world. If I were in an African village, and I had a

choice between receiving an inexpensive vaccine which has a 1% chance

of causing autism in my child, or not receiving a vaccine at all and

having a 20% chance of not surviving the first year... I think I'd

take my chances with the vaccine.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheri B,

I don't know what the answer is, but I DO know that poisoning that population

further with vaccines should never be an option. It's certainly not helping

those people at all.

MY solution would be to put priorities into place. Look at the billions of

dollars that are spent on celebrities and professional sports players salaries

in the U.S. How much good could be done in the world if just a fraction of that

money was used to help people in Third World countries get fresh water, modern

sanitation, and healthy food???

But, as in the medical industry, money talks. The rich get richer, and the poor

get poorer. I don't think there IS a solution Sheri, as long as there is so

much greed in the world. But again, vaccines are NOT the answer.

Kay

Re: Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

Kay,

While I totally agree with you and Sheri about this, the question for that

child in the African village is what do you do in the meantime when they don't

have good drinking water or sanitation? That seems to be the real dilemma.

Saw on PBS that Mexico had a cholera epidemic until they spent millions, if

not billions, on a water infrastructure. This took years, obviously.

What is the solution until those goals are achieved?

Sheri B.

[Guest guest]

Kay,

TOTALLY agree, but then again, we put our money where our priorities are,

don't we? I mean we're all guilty (or maybe most of us are) of spending money

on movies and ballgames and whatever to support these highly paid people.

While I'm not at all in favor of dictating who gets paid what, our government

should contribute money to improve sanitation as a form of aid rather than just

handing out vaccines.

I think we're on the same page. : )

Sheri B.

Kay <dr-ky@...> wrote:

Hi Sheri B,

I don't know what the answer is, but I DO know that poisoning that population

further with vaccines should never be an option. It's certainly not helping

those people at all.

MY solution would be to put priorities into place. Look at the billions of

dollars that are spent on celebrities and professional sports players salaries

in the U.S. How much good could be done in the world if just a fraction of that

money was used to help people in Third World countries get fresh water, modern

sanitation, and healthy food???

But, as in the medical industry, money talks. The rich get richer, and the poor

get poorer. I don't think there IS a solution Sheri, as long as there is so

much greed in the world. But again, vaccines are NOT the answer.

Kay

Re: Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

Kay,

While I totally agree with you and Sheri about this, the question for that

child in the African village is what do you do in the meantime when they don't

have good drinking water or sanitation? That seems to be the real dilemma.

Saw on PBS that Mexico had a cholera epidemic until they spent millions, if

not billions, on a water infrastructure. This took years, obviously.

What is the solution until those goals are achieved?

Sheri B.

[Guest guest]

FWIW, I think that promoting breastfeeding and clean water would go furthest to

help these people and that isn't exactly going to be expensive. Give them - or

help them organise - clean water, help to cultivate their own food and stop

drugging the hell out of them. Could probably be paid for ten times over with

the money they use on drugs and vaccines.

Sue

---- " Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

> Kay,

>

> TOTALLY agree, but then again, we put our money where our priorities are,

don't we? I mean we're all guilty (or maybe most of us are) of spending money

on movies and ballgames and whatever to support these highly paid people.

>

> While I'm not at all in favor of dictating who gets paid what, our

government should contribute money to improve sanitation as a form of aid rather

than just handing out vaccines.

>

> I think we're on the same page. : )

>

> Sheri B.

>

[Guest guest]

Absolutely, Sue. I agree 110%. There's a great deal of money already being

wasted there on " medical " care when it could be put to much better use helping

those people with the things you mentioned.

Kay

Re: Re: kids mortality 100 years ago

FWIW, I think that promoting breastfeeding and clean water would go furthest

to help these people and that isn't exactly going to be expensive. Give them -

or help them organise - clean water, help to cultivate their own food and stop

drugging the hell out of them. Could probably be paid for ten times over with

the money they use on drugs and vaccines.

Sue

[Guest guest]

And again, I agree, but a complete water system in large countries is not cheap.

That does not mean that clean water cannot be acquired another, cheaper, way,

but I would think that water sanitation systems would be one of the best ways to

ensure a more permanent clean water situation. Anybody?

Sheri B.

---------------------------------

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min

with Messenger with Voice.