Alternative Medicine Pediatrician?
- Thread starter IrvineHousewife
- Start date
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Health care is so much fun.
Let's play death panel.
First question. Annually roughly 2 people over 65 years of age get an intestine transplant. The death rate is 20% the first year, 50% by the fifth year.
The per person, per month (PMPM) costs of paying for the transplants is 1 cent (slightly under), basically 1 dime, per person per year that's just for the 30 days up to and the 180 days following the procedure). 10 cents. For every single man, woman and child in the country.
In 2011 there were 72 intestine transplants in people under 65 years of age. PMPM is roughly 3 cents. Their death rate is still the average 20% first year, 50% by year five.
Combined, to treat those 74 people, of which, roughly 15 are going to die the first year is just under $90 million and about 29 cents per person for every single person in the USA.
Should we pay or not? Should we pay for the under 65 group only?
Heart transplants fair much better, their five year survival is 72%. They're one year survival is 88%. They're also about 30% cheaper per procedure. Unfortunately, they have about 30X the number of procedures.
PMPM costs for heart transplants is 57 cents. $6.84/yr for every person, whether one day old or 112 years old. Your family of four, cut a check for $25.
Isn't it fun playing real world survivor?
Next up, heart lung transplant combo. 30 people in 2011. Average cost $1.25 million. PMPM costs, 1 cent, 12 cents a year. Only 1/3rd will die in the first year following transplant and by year five, 2/3rds have died.
Yes, you've said yes to all three, annual costs are only $7.25 per year, for every person in your house it's a pittance right?
Don't worry, there's a lot of different transplants to work through. Kidney-heart is a good one. There were 66 of them in 2011. Cost is roughly $1.3 million per procedure. Only 28 cents per year per person to do them.
Bone marrow transplants? We do a lot of them. Five year death rate is roughly 50%.
Autogeneic bone marrow transplants cost roughly $805K. With 6500 procedures a year it's $18/per person for every man, woman and child in the USA. Your family of four is just short of $80/year.
Autologous bone marrow transplants are much cheaper at $363K. With 13,000 procedures a year, it's $15.60/per person a year.
Your running total for saying yes is $40.91 for each person in your household and we haven't gotten to the common stuff yet.
Like pregnancy, we have a 4.5% c-section rate. No biggy. Average pregnancy delivery costs are $18K for the insurers with another $3400 out of pocket by the parents, and $28K for a c-section.
In 2008, we have 4.28 million births. For simplicity sake let's assume 1 pregnancy, 1 birth so we don't have to address the 2 million non-births.
PMPM cost of pregnancy is roughly $20. That's $256 per person a year in your household. That family of four bill is getting steep, it's pushing $1200.
Now, back to death panel. COPD. We have emergency room visits, simple admissions, complex admissions and intensive care admissions.
Let's just look at intensive care admissions, they have 1/3rd fatality rate, readmission rate in 30-60 days is 15%. Average cost $45K per admission. There's roughly 8500 admissions a year. 1/3 rd die before they get out. That's $1.25 year for every person in the US. There's ~490,000 more COPD admissions a year, they're not as expensive, but the volume makes up for it. In complex admissions, only 10% die, they add $2.80 per year to every person bill. The simple admission rarely die, but they add $10.50 a year to every person's bill. Those ER visits, they're not bad they average about $0.30/year.
Shall we keep playing? It's death of a thousand cuts. We're at $1250/yr for a family of four and we've covered birth delivery cost and about 50,000 out of 308,000,000 people's conditions
We haven't hit pneumonia yet, primarly fatal in the 65+ crowd with the majority of the bill coming from the 65+ crowd.
Heart stints? Angioplasty? Crutchfield-Jakobs disease?
Want to check numbers? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_07.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869226http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/2011-us-organ-tissue.pdf
Let's play death panel.
First question. Annually roughly 2 people over 65 years of age get an intestine transplant. The death rate is 20% the first year, 50% by the fifth year.
The per person, per month (PMPM) costs of paying for the transplants is 1 cent (slightly under), basically 1 dime, per person per year that's just for the 30 days up to and the 180 days following the procedure). 10 cents. For every single man, woman and child in the country.
In 2011 there were 72 intestine transplants in people under 65 years of age. PMPM is roughly 3 cents. Their death rate is still the average 20% first year, 50% by year five.
Combined, to treat those 74 people, of which, roughly 15 are going to die the first year is just under $90 million and about 29 cents per person for every single person in the USA.
Should we pay or not? Should we pay for the under 65 group only?
Heart transplants fair much better, their five year survival is 72%. They're one year survival is 88%. They're also about 30% cheaper per procedure. Unfortunately, they have about 30X the number of procedures.
PMPM costs for heart transplants is 57 cents. $6.84/yr for every person, whether one day old or 112 years old. Your family of four, cut a check for $25.
Isn't it fun playing real world survivor?
Next up, heart lung transplant combo. 30 people in 2011. Average cost $1.25 million. PMPM costs, 1 cent, 12 cents a year. Only 1/3rd will die in the first year following transplant and by year five, 2/3rds have died.
Yes, you've said yes to all three, annual costs are only $7.25 per year, for every person in your house it's a pittance right?
Don't worry, there's a lot of different transplants to work through. Kidney-heart is a good one. There were 66 of them in 2011. Cost is roughly $1.3 million per procedure. Only 28 cents per year per person to do them.
Bone marrow transplants? We do a lot of them. Five year death rate is roughly 50%.
Autogeneic bone marrow transplants cost roughly $805K. With 6500 procedures a year it's $18/per person for every man, woman and child in the USA. Your family of four is just short of $80/year.
Autologous bone marrow transplants are much cheaper at $363K. With 13,000 procedures a year, it's $15.60/per person a year.
Your running total for saying yes is $40.91 for each person in your household and we haven't gotten to the common stuff yet.
Like pregnancy, we have a 4.5% c-section rate. No biggy. Average pregnancy delivery costs are $18K for the insurers with another $3400 out of pocket by the parents, and $28K for a c-section.
In 2008, we have 4.28 million births. For simplicity sake let's assume 1 pregnancy, 1 birth so we don't have to address the 2 million non-births.
PMPM cost of pregnancy is roughly $20. That's $256 per person a year in your household. That family of four bill is getting steep, it's pushing $1200.
Now, back to death panel. COPD. We have emergency room visits, simple admissions, complex admissions and intensive care admissions.
Let's just look at intensive care admissions, they have 1/3rd fatality rate, readmission rate in 30-60 days is 15%. Average cost $45K per admission. There's roughly 8500 admissions a year. 1/3 rd die before they get out. That's $1.25 year for every person in the US. There's ~490,000 more COPD admissions a year, they're not as expensive, but the volume makes up for it. In complex admissions, only 10% die, they add $2.80 per year to every person bill. The simple admission rarely die, but they add $10.50 a year to every person's bill. Those ER visits, they're not bad they average about $0.30/year.
Shall we keep playing? It's death of a thousand cuts. We're at $1250/yr for a family of four and we've covered birth delivery cost and about 50,000 out of 308,000,000 people's conditions
We haven't hit pneumonia yet, primarly fatal in the 65+ crowd with the majority of the bill coming from the 65+ crowd.
Heart stints? Angioplasty? Crutchfield-Jakobs disease?
Want to check numbers? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_07.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869226http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/2011-us-organ-tissue.pdf
Irvinecommuter
New member
IHO: I will try to respond without quote (too confusing)
1) Actually, you don't pay the government. You pay the individual insurance company. The only thing the government is responsible is setting up an exchange where the various insurance company offer up their various plan. It's really no different than what, for example, e-insurance.com does. You go to the exchange, pick the plan, and pay the insurer. The government will help subsidize those people who have lower income but do not get between you and insurer.
2) Insurance is basically an attempt to spread risk out over a group of people. That's why group plans are cheaper than individual plans, one person in that group may incur lots of medical costs while the rest do not. Instead of having that one person pay for all of the cost by himself, you spread those costs over the rest of the group. The idea is that no one in the group knows when they will incur medical costs, it's a fair system.
There are many people (generally healthy) people who are not in the healthcare insurance system because they don't want to be. There are also many people who cannot get health insurance because they have pre-existing conditions, are unemployed, or do not work for an employer who offers health insurance. The idea is to bring all those people into the fold so that the premiums of the relatively healthy would buffer out the costs of those who are relatively ill/hurt.
3) You are locked into a job with benefits. One issue is that many jobs don't offer health insurance (or really bad insurance). Now, you don't have to restrict yourself to those type of jobs. For example, let say you are offered two position right now, one with benefits and one without but pays 10% more. If you need the insurance (for whatever reason), you would mostly likely pick the one with benefits because individual health insurance costs more than a group plan. Under Obamacare, you can take the job that pays more and buy your own health insurance.
What if you lose your job? What will you and your family do for insurance?
What if you want to start your own business?
4) Many employers rather have fixed costs. One of the problems healthcare costs employers cannot properly affix the costs year over year. Under Obamacare, a company can elect to pay the penalty (which is fixed) rather than deal with a potential rise in healthcare premium (which can jump 15-20% in any given year). Yes, those who don't offer insurance now will be impacted more but the impact is generally for large companies and they will receive benefits such as increased worker productivity and morale as a result of the benefits.
5) Many many people cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, unemployed, or work in jobs that don't offer healthcare insurance. An estimated 44 million people in this country have no health insurance and another 38 million are under-insured. Those people require medical care, often getting such care through the ER (which is the most expensive way to get care). Those individuals rack up tons of medical bills that either they keep paying or cause them to have to declare BK (no. one reason for bankruptcies). Hospitals and healthcare providers have to eat that costs or tack those costs on to the paying patients...guess which one they do? That's why the uninsured impacts the costs of healthcare for those who are insured.
6) It is a possibility people will see their doctors more (considering the uninsured never see a doctor) but the potential costs are minimal. People seeing their doctors early also reduces the need for expensive care later on. For example, if someone gets the flu, which develops into bronchitis...that person is much cheaper to treat with antibiotics early on than if that person doesn't get treated and then goes to the ER when the condition worsens. It also help reduce the possibility of infectuous disease from spreading because people don't get treated or the disease is not contained.
Also, the "seeing the doctor" thing doesn't actually happen in real life. Most people don't start going to the doctor like 50 times a month just because they have insurance all of a sudden.
Socialized medicine is not some new fangled idea. Just about every industrialized nation has it, England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, etc.. Now, socialized medicine is not a pancea and not perfect but it a whole lot better than what we have today.
7) There are a lot of things not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Right to privacy for example...not explicitly found. Equal treatment for people of various races, religion, or social status, not explicit set forth in the Constitution. Most of the rights that we have were articulated by the Supreme Court and subsequent litigation by Congress.
1) Actually, you don't pay the government. You pay the individual insurance company. The only thing the government is responsible is setting up an exchange where the various insurance company offer up their various plan. It's really no different than what, for example, e-insurance.com does. You go to the exchange, pick the plan, and pay the insurer. The government will help subsidize those people who have lower income but do not get between you and insurer.
2) Insurance is basically an attempt to spread risk out over a group of people. That's why group plans are cheaper than individual plans, one person in that group may incur lots of medical costs while the rest do not. Instead of having that one person pay for all of the cost by himself, you spread those costs over the rest of the group. The idea is that no one in the group knows when they will incur medical costs, it's a fair system.
There are many people (generally healthy) people who are not in the healthcare insurance system because they don't want to be. There are also many people who cannot get health insurance because they have pre-existing conditions, are unemployed, or do not work for an employer who offers health insurance. The idea is to bring all those people into the fold so that the premiums of the relatively healthy would buffer out the costs of those who are relatively ill/hurt.
3) You are locked into a job with benefits. One issue is that many jobs don't offer health insurance (or really bad insurance). Now, you don't have to restrict yourself to those type of jobs. For example, let say you are offered two position right now, one with benefits and one without but pays 10% more. If you need the insurance (for whatever reason), you would mostly likely pick the one with benefits because individual health insurance costs more than a group plan. Under Obamacare, you can take the job that pays more and buy your own health insurance.
What if you lose your job? What will you and your family do for insurance?
What if you want to start your own business?
4) Many employers rather have fixed costs. One of the problems healthcare costs employers cannot properly affix the costs year over year. Under Obamacare, a company can elect to pay the penalty (which is fixed) rather than deal with a potential rise in healthcare premium (which can jump 15-20% in any given year). Yes, those who don't offer insurance now will be impacted more but the impact is generally for large companies and they will receive benefits such as increased worker productivity and morale as a result of the benefits.
5) Many many people cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, unemployed, or work in jobs that don't offer healthcare insurance. An estimated 44 million people in this country have no health insurance and another 38 million are under-insured. Those people require medical care, often getting such care through the ER (which is the most expensive way to get care). Those individuals rack up tons of medical bills that either they keep paying or cause them to have to declare BK (no. one reason for bankruptcies). Hospitals and healthcare providers have to eat that costs or tack those costs on to the paying patients...guess which one they do? That's why the uninsured impacts the costs of healthcare for those who are insured.
6) It is a possibility people will see their doctors more (considering the uninsured never see a doctor) but the potential costs are minimal. People seeing their doctors early also reduces the need for expensive care later on. For example, if someone gets the flu, which develops into bronchitis...that person is much cheaper to treat with antibiotics early on than if that person doesn't get treated and then goes to the ER when the condition worsens. It also help reduce the possibility of infectuous disease from spreading because people don't get treated or the disease is not contained.
Also, the "seeing the doctor" thing doesn't actually happen in real life. Most people don't start going to the doctor like 50 times a month just because they have insurance all of a sudden.
Socialized medicine is not some new fangled idea. Just about every industrialized nation has it, England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, etc.. Now, socialized medicine is not a pancea and not perfect but it a whole lot better than what we have today.
7) There are a lot of things not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. Right to privacy for example...not explicitly found. Equal treatment for people of various races, religion, or social status, not explicit set forth in the Constitution. Most of the rights that we have were articulated by the Supreme Court and subsequent litigation by Congress.
Irvinecommuter
New member
nosuchreality said:
Stop...this is such a silly argument. Do you think your insurance company don't make these decisions right now? Right now, you have to get approval from your insurance company to receive a treatment.
Second, there are no "death panels." The panel proposed under Obamacare simply set forth best practices. Insurance companies still run the show.
Also, those 65+ are not going to be involved, they are covered by medicare. Which brings me to a tangent about people who love private insurance, their pool of members are already better than those under medicare because those 65+ are not in those insurance policies. Yet, Medicare provides excellent care with lower overhead and waste.
Additionally, all those costs are already in the system. People without insurance simply don't pay or go BK. Those costs get bore by those with insurance.
Irvinecommuter
New member
qwerty said:
Private companies are often very inefficient and have a bad risk/benefit analysis. The difference between the government and private companies is that there are many many companies, the bulk of which fail. The ones that you deal with are the ones that are relative efficient. Even then, many companies do things that are "efficient" in the short-term but are extremely inefficient in the long run.
JPMorgan just got fined $920 million this morning for doing things that appeared to be efficient in the short-term but incredibly stupid in the long run. Have we not just gone through the worse economic crisis in US history since the Great Depression because banks attempting to speed up efficiency with respect to loans by eliminating "inefficiencies" and hurdles in the system?
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
@Irvinecommuter:
I'm too tired to get into your long response (and I do thank you for taking the time to do so) but there are some holes in what you are saying.
You are outlining the positives but are ignoring the negatives. If you think the government is not getting involved with the money, then why need the federal mandate? Why are taxes getting increased for individuals and companies for Obamacare?
And why make the healthy pay premiums when they don't need to, isn't that part of this whole "freedom" thing?
As for socialized healthcare not being new, that's something every proponent brings up, but it's not like it's flawless. Why do people come to the US to seek specialized medical care? And for all those countries you name, none have the size, scale or scope of the US, which is why it should have stayed at a local/state level (if it had to be done).
We'll see... but as much as you can claim that big companies are not efficient, that doesn't change the fact that the government is not efficient either, and at the federal level, that magnifies. The difference to me, is I have no say in it. I can't opt to not pay my taxes while I can opt not to do business with an inefficient company.
Now excuse me as I throw some tea into the sink.
I'm too tired to get into your long response (and I do thank you for taking the time to do so) but there are some holes in what you are saying.
You are outlining the positives but are ignoring the negatives. If you think the government is not getting involved with the money, then why need the federal mandate? Why are taxes getting increased for individuals and companies for Obamacare?
And why make the healthy pay premiums when they don't need to, isn't that part of this whole "freedom" thing?
As for socialized healthcare not being new, that's something every proponent brings up, but it's not like it's flawless. Why do people come to the US to seek specialized medical care? And for all those countries you name, none have the size, scale or scope of the US, which is why it should have stayed at a local/state level (if it had to be done).
We'll see... but as much as you can claim that big companies are not efficient, that doesn't change the fact that the government is not efficient either, and at the federal level, that magnifies. The difference to me, is I have no say in it. I can't opt to not pay my taxes while I can opt not to do business with an inefficient company.
Now excuse me as I throw some tea into the sink.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
IC. Once again you can't see te forest for the trees. On one hand you argue common good and social contract for immunization and on the other refuse to address the underlying costs.
I'm for nationalized health care. Our costs are lowest when everyone can get their services at the lowest point of entry.
But we need to grow up as a nation. We need death panels. We need rationing. Insurance rations today through terms like medically necessary and cost effectiveness. That's why several plan are dropping proton treatment
So the death panel you are on is we can cover everyone, now decide what we won't treat
We could it like the UK. The death panel is time. In many instances waits are the death panel. Or squeaky wheel. Or you're connected
Under preACA. We rationed by those that could afford and pass a rigorous pre screen.
Then we death panels under medical necessity an cost effectiveness
So make your choices. We cover everyone. Now we're do we draw the line on treatments?
I'm for nationalized health care. Our costs are lowest when everyone can get their services at the lowest point of entry.
But we need to grow up as a nation. We need death panels. We need rationing. Insurance rations today through terms like medically necessary and cost effectiveness. That's why several plan are dropping proton treatment
So the death panel you are on is we can cover everyone, now decide what we won't treat
We could it like the UK. The death panel is time. In many instances waits are the death panel. Or squeaky wheel. Or you're connected
Under preACA. We rationed by those that could afford and pass a rigorous pre screen.
Then we death panels under medical necessity an cost effectiveness
So make your choices. We cover everyone. Now we're do we draw the line on treatments?
Irvinecommuter
New member
Nosuchreality...I believe there is friendly fire.
I believe that there should single payer system that establish a certain level of care and supplemental insurance if you want more coverage. Basically what Medicare does now. France has a similar system.
I believe that there should single payer system that establish a certain level of care and supplemental insurance if you want more coverage. Basically what Medicare does now. France has a similar system.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I'm with Tyler, I find it interesting that Irvinecommuter does not think government is more inefficient.
Isn't this why there was/is a debate to privatize Social Security because a large contingency feels that non-government agencies can do more with our money?
Regardless, while I feel that everyone should get vaccinated, I also respect freedom of choice. This is a hard one because like others are saying, this certain "freedom" puts others at risk health-wise.
It's like when there are lice breakouts in elementary schools... I know my kids and home are lice-free but I can't do anything about the kids they play with and then all of a sudden I have to use special shampoos, nit combs and launder every single linen in my house because someone else's family wasn't vigilant. Gah.
Isn't this why there was/is a debate to privatize Social Security because a large contingency feels that non-government agencies can do more with our money?
Regardless, while I feel that everyone should get vaccinated, I also respect freedom of choice. This is a hard one because like others are saying, this certain "freedom" puts others at risk health-wise.
It's like when there are lice breakouts in elementary schools... I know my kids and home are lice-free but I can't do anything about the kids they play with and then all of a sudden I have to use special shampoos, nit combs and launder every single linen in my house because someone else's family wasn't vigilant. Gah.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
While I agree that extending Medicare to everyone would have been a simple solution, there's still trade-offs there. The points Tyler brings up are valid. What happens when we have just Medicare and Medicare makes a decision like Blue Shield and decides proton therapy isn't cost effective?
That social contract you mentioned before has trade offs. Too often, people trot it out and blithely gloss over those trade-offs. Vaccinations are not risk free. MMR causes seizures in 1 in 3000 dozes.
1 in million have severe allergic reactions. Other 'very rare' side effects include deafness, brain damage, etc.
There's 12 million doses administered a year, so that's 12 severe allergic reactions. That' s one vaccine.
Chicken pox is a mild vaccine. So, let's combine it with MMR right? Well.... no. Here's the note from the CDC:
DTaP vaccine. 1 in 16000 develop a fever over 105F. Seizures again, from fever.
and the all too common 'very rare' side effect which is so rare they can't be sure, yet shows up, over and over and over.
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage.
So that social contract you trotted out isn't risk free and you're requiring people to spin the roulette wheel.
Spin it and rely on the Government and Medical community that has a long history of undervaluing the individual in the pursuit of the common good. Like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment that finally got whistleblown in 1972.
Morbo wants to live a longer and better life. I don't blame them, I do too. Morbo is currently suppressing their immune system. Why does that mean every one else needs to do something? Because the social contract you've said, requires parents to step up 12 million times and tossed the million sided dice and hope a 1 doesn't come up.
It's a serious question and IMHO, will become critical as the boomers age.
irvinehomeowner said:
I haven't caught up on the thread so I apologize if I have taken this out of context. I don't think that analogy applies.. ex: If your kids are vaccinated for measles and the kids they play with get measles, your kids won't catch measles from them (like they would catch lice) since they are vaccinated.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Tyler Durden said:
I am absolutely not saying that the government is perfect or more efficient. My point is that government is more efficient than what most people think and private companies are a lot less efficient than people think. Look at the auto, airline, mortgage, and even the computer industry...there are a lot of inefficiency. Both government and private industries are inefficient in their own way.
You also need to define efficiency. Too many people equate efficiency with speed and lower costs forget about quality, long term result, and ancillary benefits.
Government is inefficient because it is a large entity that does not really have any competition. Status quo sets in and it is very hard to change. Also, government are run by individuals who have divergent and often conflicting agenda and those individuals change often.
Private industries are inefficient because they are search for the profit margin. Very basic decisions don't get made because someone is always trying to save an extra dollar. Often, decisions that are made are based on short term costs rather than long term soundness. A good example is moving customer service people overseas. Many companies thought that this was a great idea but many are realizing that poor customer service leads to disgruntled customers and loss of brand image/loyalty. Many companies are also realizing that moving production overseas was not as profitable as imagined. More seriously, many companies make very short-sighted decision based upon immediate profit and ignore longterm risks. They take out key and critical checkpoints along the way in order to streamline and increase inefficiency only to find that the decisions made have bad results going forward.
The big difference between private industry and government is that businesses can fail but governments can't (well...they could theoritically). The companies who have survived are the cream of the crop...but even then those companies can falter. Look at Blackberry, Nokia, Intel, Microsoft, Krispy Kreme, etc...they were all top business at one time but now all struggling at various degrees. A lot of companies are finding that being "efficient" isn't necessarily good...compare In 'n' Out with McDonald's.
bones said:
Thanks for pointing that out. We had a similar concern when our second one was born (not specifically worried about a particular disease but even just a typical cold). We took our toddler out of school for a few months before the second one was born and didn't put her back in until after the baby received some vaccinations. We were concerned about the older one catching something at school and then getting the younger one sick.
I do agree with the concern of the younger one catching something during the drop off/pick up of the older one. My wife says all the kids swarm them during drop off and pick up because they want to see and play with the baby.
Irvinecommuter
New member
nosuchreality said:
A couple of things:
1) there are serious side effects for medication that you take everyday...ever read the warning labels on your medication?
Tylenol could cause liver failure and death. Advil can put you into a coma. Benadryl can cause seizure. General anesthesia can lead to serious complication including death. Of course, medications have side effects, the question is whether the overall benefit derived from them significantly outweighs the risks.
2) What you don't recognize is that if you don't get vaccinated...there is a greater chance of your child getting those complication when s/he catches the disease. For example, 3,000 to 49,000 people die every year as a result of the flu and that's with flu vaccination. Yes, there are side effects to the DtaP vaccine, but there were 40,000 cases of whooping cough in 2010 (ten death), 18,000 cases in 2011, and 41,000 in 2012...and that's with vaccines!
3) You understand that odds of you and your children face extremely more dangerous things in every day life like you know contact with bees (1 death in 71,000), dog attacks (1 in 122,000), or lightning (1 in 126,000). Odds of dying from the flu vaccine is about 1 in 1.6 billion.
http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Injury_Facts_43.pdf
Irvinecommuter
New member
Tyler Durden said:
Wait what? How do you link the two? Science is not about products...science is about data. Just like natural things, science can be both good and bad. Are you saying that science is always bad and natural things are always good?
Pesticides, antibiotics, and hormone and GMO food are about food production and costs...not health. Vaccines are about health. For example, Pasturization is about health and yes I believe in pasturization.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Tyler Durden said:
Wait..you are not making any sense at all. Antibiotic for humans help prevent serious communicable disease from resurfacing and killing lots of people. Antibiotics for chickens help farmers keep them alive so that they don't lose a bunch of them. Antibiotics is a way for a farmer to ensure that he will have a certain level of chicken to sell in the future. It has nothing to do with human health.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Tyler Durden said:
You and I are talking about completely different things. Antibiotics are also not vaccines.