Transcript · English → Indonesian
Impact of Measles Vaccination on Public Health
Untuk melihat gambaran seutuhnya. Apa dampak menyeluruhnya secara holistik terhadap
kesehatan masyarakat
dari penggunaan produk ini, bukan? Maksudnya, apakah melenyapkan
campak agar tidak lagi endemik, dari peredarannya di populasi, merupakan
manfaat kesehatan bersih atau kerugian kesehatan bersih?
Dan seperti yang, Anda tahu, saya tunjukkan di— seperti yang saya bahas terperinci di buku,
um, dan pernah saya bicarakan di depan umum sebelumnya,
saat Anda benar-benar melihat
sainsnya, mari kita lihat satu sisi persamaannya.
Apa manfaat dari, eh, terkait pengenalan vaksin dari
pelenyapan campak terhadap angka kematian?
Nah, di Amerika Serikat, seperti halnya juga, omong-omong, di Inggris
dan negara-negara maju
lainnya,
antara 1900 dan pengenalan vaksin campak pada 1963 di Amerika
Serikat, kematian akibat campak menurun lebih dari 98%.
Di In- di Inggris, antara sem- itu se- antara 1900 dan
1968 saat diperkenalkan, angkanya turun lebih dari 99%, paham?
Apa penyebab penurunan mortalitas itu? Aku bisa beri tahu apa yang bukan.
Bukan vaksin. Vaksin belum ada, paham?
Saat mereka memperkenalkan vaksinnya, ada sekitar 400 kematian per tahun akibat
campak di Amerika Serikat.
Pada masa ketika sebagian wilayah Amerika masih seperti
negara berkembang, bukan? Tempat orang meninggal akibat berbagai
penyakit, akibat, akibat
jenis apa pun karena, tahu sendiri, mereka tidak punya air bersih,
mereka tidak punya…
dan sebagainya. Nah,
jadi 400 orang yang meninggal itu kemungkinan akan terus menurun
bahkan
tanpa vaksinasi, seperti yang terjadi pada banyak pe- penyakit, saat mereka
mencoba membuat vaksin dan gagal, seperti demam skarlet dan sebagainya, paham?
Tingkat patogenisitasnya berkurang seiring waktu.
Tapi anggap saja
vaksin menyelamatkan 400 nyawa setahun di Amerika, yang omong-omong,
saat itu berarti satu dari
450.000 or- orang Amerika meninggal karena campak.
Satu dari 450.000. Jauh dari mematikan. Keban- seba- departemen kesehatan kita
mempromosikan campak seakan jutaan orang di Amerika meninggal sebelum
adanya
vaksin, oke? Itu satu dari 450.000 orang per tahun,
pada masa ketika
semua orang terkena campak. Nah, apa sisi sebaliknya dari hal itu?
Jadi, biar kuberitahu apa yang ditunjukkan studi.
Studi menunjukkan mereka yang tak kena campak, oke,
ini, eh, mengalami peningkatan tingkat kematian
akibat penyakit kardiovaskular dan kanker yang signifikan secara statistik.
Signifikan secara statistik. Misalnya, ada studi terhadap 100.000 orang
di Jepang yang melacak Jep- 100.000 orang di Jepang selama lebih dari
20 tahun. Oke? Studi pemerintah.
Studi yang didanai pemerintah, melibatkan pemerintah.
Yang mereka temukan adalah setelah 22 tahun,
mereka yang pernah menderita campak dan gondongan
mengalami penurunan 20% yang signifikan secara statistik atas
kematian akibat penyakit kardiovaskular.
Pikirkan itu. 20%.
Penyakit kardiovaskular menewaskan 800.000 warga Amerika setahun.
800.000. Jika memberantas campak dan gondongan,
lupakan 20%, katakanlah 1%,
berdampak 1%, ya, itu sudah jauh melampaui 400 kematian.
Sudah jauh melampaui. Anda sudah membalikkan manfaat
kesehatan masyarakat.
Kanker. Berbagai penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, misalnya,
eh, terkena campak, eh, mengurangi, mereka yang pernah
menderita campak mengalami penurunan 66%, eh,
tingkat limfoma Hodgkin dan tingkat penurunan 166
pada limfoma non-Hodgkin. Itu menewaskan 20.000, sebagian besar anak-anak, setahun.
Ji— jika Anda pernah terkena campak, risiko kanker ovarium Anda separuhnya.
Bukan saya yang meneliti ini. Ini dibuat oleh berbagai institusi besar di seluruh
dunia.
Semuanya ada di PubMed. Ada di buku saya. Saya mengutipnya.
Anda bisa melihatnya. Semuanya ada dalam literatur yang ditelaah sejawat.
Itu dilakukan berbagai institusi besar. Dan inilah faktanya tentang studi-studi itu.
Sebagian di antaranya lebih besar, seperti studi di Jepang.
Sebagian lebih kecil dan bersifat retrospektif,
seperti beberapa studi kanker, tetapi
hasilnya cukup konsisten. Semuanya menunjukkan hal yang sama.
Jadi dari sudut pandang kesehatan masyarakat, apakah kita mendapat manfaat bersih?
Seiring waktu, patogen datang dan pergi lalu menghilang.
Campak tidak.
Bisa jadi karena ini memberi manfaat bertahan hidup, bahwa mengalami ini, apa
dianggap umumnya tidak berbahaya, umumnya, Anda tahu, bagi anak
yang terinfeksi virus liar,
em, memberikan keuntungan bertahan hidup.
Jadi, Anda tahu, em, yang baru saja saya katakan mungkin membuat orang
marah,
tapi begitulah datanya.
Begitulah datanya. Jangan marah soal itu. Jangan geram.
Jangan kesal.
Ini hanya data.
End of transcript · 646 words · machine translated
Original transcript (English)
To look at the whole picture. What is the entire impact holistically on public health of using this product, right? Meaning, does eliminating a measles from being endemic, from circulating the population, a net health benefit or a net health detriment?
And as, you know, I point out in my- as I go through in detail in the book, um, and I've talked about in public before, when you actually look at the science, let's look at one side of the equation. What was the benefit of, uh, vis-à-vis introducing the vaccine from
eliminating measles vis mortality? Well, in the United States, as is true by the way, in the UK and other developed countries, between 1900 and the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 in the United
States, measles mortality declined by over 98%. In the U- in England, between nine- it was s- between 1900 and 1968 when it was introduced, it declined by over 99%, okay? What caused that reduction in mortality? I could tell you what didn't. It wasn't vaccines. They didn't exist, okay?
By the time they introduced the vaccine, there were about 400 deaths a year from measles in the United States. At a time when parts of America were still like a developing country, right? Where people will die of all kinds of disease, of, of
any kind because they're, you know, they don't have clean water, they don't have... and so forth. Now, so those 400 folks who died was probably gonna continue to decline even
without a vaccination, as occur with many d- diseases, where they tried to make a vaccine and didn't, like scarlet fever and so forth, okay? They become less pathogenic over time. But let's just assume the vaccine saves 400 lives a year in America, which by the
way, at that point translated to 1 in 450,000 in- Americans died of measles. 1 of 450,000. Far from the killer. Mer- most- our health department promotes measles as if millions in America died before there was a
vaccine, okay? It's 1 in 450,000 people a year, at a time when everybody got measles. Now, what's the flip side to that? Well, let me tell you what the studies show. They show that those who don't get measles, okay,
this was, uh, have a statistically significant increased rate of death from cardiovascular disease and from cancer. Statistically significant. For example, there was 100,000-person study in Japan that tracked Jap- 100,000 people in Japan for over 20 years. Okay? Government study.
Government-funded, government-involved study. What they found is that after 22 years, those that had measles and mumps had a 20% statistically significant reduction in death from cardiovascular disease.
Think about that. 20%. Cardiovascular disease kills 800,000 Americans a year. 800,000. If eliminating measles and mumps, forget 20%, let's say 1%, had a 1% effect, well, you're way past your 400 deaths.
You're way past. You've already inverted your public health benefit. Cancers. The studies show that, for example, uh, getting measles, uh, reduces, those who have had measles have a reduction of 66% decreased, uh,
rate of Hodgkin's lymphoma and 166 reduction rate in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Those kill 20,000, mostly kids, a year. It- if you've had measles, you have half the rate of ovarian cancer. I didn't do these studies. These are by major institutions around the world.
They're all there in PubMed. They're in my book. I cite to them. You can go see them. They're all in peer-reviewed literature. They're done by major institutions. And here's the thing about those studies. Some of them are bigger, like the Japan study. Some of them are smaller and retrospective,
like some of the cancer studies, but they're pretty consistent. They all end up showing the same thing. So from a public health perspective, did we have a net benefit? Pathogens over time have come and gone and disappeared. Measles didn't.
It could be because it has a survival benefit, that having this, what was considered generally innocuous, generally, you know, for a wild child infection, um, a conferred a survival advantage. So, you know, um, now that, now that, what I just said might make people
mad, but that's just the data. That's just the data. Don't get mad about it. Don't get angry. Don't get upset. It's just data
