Mennonite Measles in Texas

[Grace]

In reading through this thread and have to smile a little. All the children in my family growing up, had the measles. I don't remember much of them, as I was very young. The only thing that stands out is being forced to stay in my darkened bedroom during that time. That was the worst part of having the measles. I am not opposed to measles vaccines, our children got them, but measles in otherwise healthy children didn't seem to have any lasting effects.

We drank raw milk, walked barefoot all summer, sometimes stepping in cow patties by mistake, swam in the creek that all the livestock up stream did their business in, and we rarely got sick. There were no hospitalizations, not many doctor visits, no ER visits, etc. We had a few times stitches were needed but, in that era, stitches were done in the doctor's office. We were immunized against serious diseases such as polio, smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid fever etc. Autism and food allergies were unheard of. There was no such thing as allergies to peanuts, gluten, lactose, etc. As whole children are so much sicker than they were 50 to 75 years ago. And you have to wonder why. But I suppose that is a whole other topic.

[JimFoxvog]

The “science” is often wrong. In the 1950s, we were told smoking is good for you.

I grew up in the 1950s and always knew smoking was harmful. My parents told me an old name for cigarettes was "coffin nails." I think only advertisements suggested they might be good for you, or at least that some brand was safer because of the filter.

[Valerie]

In reading through this thread and have to smile a little. All the children in my family growing up, had the measles. I don't remember much of them, as I was very young. The only thing that stands out is being forced to stay in my darkened bedroom during that time. That was the worst part of having the measles. I am not opposed to measles vaccines, our children got them, but measles in otherwise healthy children didn't seem to have any lasting effects.

We drank raw milk, walked barefoot all summer, sometimes stepping in cow patties by mistake, swam in the creek that all the livestock up stream did their business in, and we rarely got sick. There were no hospitalizations, not many doctor visits, no ER visits, etc. We had a few times stitches were needed but, in that era, stitches were done in the doctor's office. We were immunized against serious diseases such as polio, smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid fever etc. Autism and food allergies were unheard of. There was no such thing as allergies to peanuts, gluten, lactose, etc. As whole children are so much sicker than they were 50 to 75 years ago. And you have to wonder why. But I suppose that is a whole other topic.

A lot of us that have been around a few decades are asking the same questions and don’t buy into the “there is just more reported now” rhetoric, as if children did have all those problems back then & they were just not diagnosed- no I grew up in public schools with large classrooms, these modern day problems did not exist or if so rare

[Ken]

The “science” is often wrong. In the 1950s, we were told smoking is good for you.

I grew up in the 1950s and always knew smoking was harmful. My parents told me an old name for cigarettes was "coffin nails." I think only advertisements suggested they might be good for you, or at least that some brand was safer because of the filter.

Exactly. There was no legitimate science that ever concluded smoking was good for you. In fact, in 1964 the Surgeon General released a seminal report on smoking and health which detailed the health risks of smoking based on all the research to date at that point, much of which was from the 1950s and before.

What we had was tobacco companies making fraudulent scientific claims about smoking in their advertisements and the FDA didn't (or couldn't) regulate tobacco advertising like they do today.

[JohnH]

Exactly. There was no legitimate science that ever concluded smoking was good for you.

"No true Scotsman could ever do such a thing."

In fact, in 1964 the Surgeon General released a seminal report on smoking and health which detailed the health risks of smoking based on all the research to date at that point, much of which was from the 1950s and before.

What we had was tobacco companies making fraudulent scientific claims about smoking in their advertisements and the FDA didn't (or couldn't) regulate tobacco advertising like they do today.

Before the Reader's Digest report in the 1950s, the consensus was that smoking was just fine, and anti-smoking screeds were the domain of strict church sects and Adolf Hitler.

[Ken]

Before the Reader's Digest report in the 1950s, the consensus was that smoking was just fine, and anti-smoking screeds were the domain of strict church sects and Adolf Hitler.

Previously you told us that "Science" in the 1950s said "smoking was good for you" without citing a single legitimate scientific source from the 1950s making that claim (hint, there were none).

Now you mention Readers Digest. Which I just looked up. I assume you are referencing the 1952 Readers Digest article titled "Cancer by the Carton" which referenced and discussed the links between cancer and cigarettes from scientific research done in the 1940s and going all the way back to the 1920s. Hmmmm..... This is the actual 2-page Readers Digest article from 1952 on smoking and cancer in its entirety. Where is this 1950s science you speak of that was telling us that smoking was good for you?

Seems like the science was pretty clear about smoking and cancer back in the 1950s. People just didn't want to listen. Just like the science is pretty clear about the effectiveness of vaccines today. Even though some people don't want to listen to that either.

[JohnH]

I'll amend it "until the 1950s".

[Ken]

I'll amend it "until the 1950s".

There was still no legitimate science prior to the 1950s supporting the claim that smoking was good for you. Just like there is no legitimate science today supporting your claim that the COVID vaccine causes cancer.

To use the claim, evidence, reasoning shorthand description, legitimate science starts with a testable CLAIM. Which you could call a hypothesis. In this case “smoking is good for you”.

The next step is to test the claim by collecting EVIDENCE or data in support of that claim. There are all manner of scientific criteria for evaluating the strength of weakness of evidence such as procedures, statistical tests and so forth.

Finally there must be REASONING that relates the evidence back to the claim. What is the mechanism or causal relationship between the evidence and the claim?

Without all three of those elements you don’t have science. And no, people with scientific credentials of some sort spouting opinions in cigarette ads or on YouTube about vaccines is not actual science. It is just random options.

[JohnH]

I'll amend it "until the 1950s".

There was still no legitimate science prior to the 1950s supporting the claim that smoking was good for you. Just like there is no legitimate science today supporting your claim that the COVID vaccine causes cancer.

“No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

[Soloist]

Okay I would like to request arguments about medical lies/truth about covid and smoking goes elsewhere! This is a measles quarantine zone only!!!