> like the more colds you have in life
Whoa wait what? This is the first time I’ve heard of this - is this actually common knowledge?
Whoa wait what? This is the first time I’ve heard of this - is this actually common knowledge?
It reminds me that we didn't look at vaccine efficacy at the individual level until SARS-CoV-2. People were getting upset that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines only have a moderate chance to stop you getting the virus, and usually lessen its impact if you do get it, and calling this an ineffective vaccine. But the truth is, we have no idea whether every previous vaccine was also like that, because we only ever looked at the population level: when lots of people get the vaccine, the virus dies out.
Because courts of law have recognized covid mRNA injections as therapeutic treatments, they cannot be mandated.
'The plaintiffs alleged that the vaccines do not prevent someone from becoming infected with COVID-19 and characterized it as a treatment rather than a “traditional vaccine.”'
https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-manda...
The reason the case was dismissed was because the requirement was removed.
The case was reopened on appeal due to the rules being temporarily re-established.
Anything else is nonsense. This is spelled out in the article but wrapped with a bunch of whatifs and maybes and possiblies.
If your hypothesis was correct, then NOTHING is a vaccine.
When I learned it, it was in the context of the influenza and similar common viruses.
It's actually more nuanced than that. If you want to read more: https://www.openevidence.com/ask/bccc3cc2-e15d-4fb0-a0c5-16f...
There was a study that showed that people who had severe influenza (they were hospitalized) were 3 times more likely to develop dementia. And there are mouse models that show that frequency respiratory virus infections can increase may contribute to brain aging (in mice).
>someone who worked in daycare and often got sick with the flu or similar, has a higher risk of dementia (statistically-speaking).
I can't find any evidence of this being true. I can find evidence that primary school teachers have lower rates of dementia. Pediatricians also have lower rates of dementia, so I find this highly doubtful.
That’s not “extrapolating some.” That’s just making stuff up.
The study you cited is from Taiwan and merely states that “Physicians who were older, specialized in pediatrics and worked at local hospitals and clinics had a higher prevalence for dementia than their counterparts did.”
“physicians who are older are more likely to have dementia”
But beyond that, pediatricians or doctors who work in hospitals or clinics covers most doctors who aren’t work from home radiologists.
The discussion is very low-yield though, since infections are already a minor point re: dementia, and none of the evidence is conclusive.
>Among physicians, pediatricians seemed to have higher rates.
Not just pediatricians, but physicians that work at hospitals and clinics.
Which is nearly all of them.
I think what you’re dealing with is a low quality, low effort survey study from Taiwan, which was poorly written, so there is no point trying to figure out what they meant.
But looking at the specific data the naive ratio for pediatricians is lower than several other specialities. It was only higher when they adjusted for confounding factors. But the list of confounders was limited by the data available.
In addition they found that for some reason working at a large hospital was protective, but they didn’t adjust for hospital size when comparing specialities. In general pediatricians are less likely to work at large hospitals than the average specialty (wife is a pediatrician).
The result is essentially a cherry picked result that only adjust for some confounders. Add to that only 19 cases of dementia among pediatricians. Then the CI for pedestrians overlaps every other listed speciality. The study is essentially meaningless for your purposes.
Also the paper is actually saying that older doctors are more likely to have dementia than younger doctors, not that doctors develop dementia later than the general population.
Academic and ongoing challenging education results in greater number of connections between nerves. In normal population, as plaque accumulates, it causes loss of transmission and deterioration of nerve connections.
In physicians, because they have more "density" and more pathways in which nerves are connected than the general population, dementias like Alzheimer's show no symptoms until there's even more plaque accumulated, because they can compensate with extra pathways, similar to the study on nuns who showed no signs of alzheimer's at an old age because they kept so active, even though post-mortem they had horrible alzheimer's on biopsy. At the late stage physicians finally manifest the dementia, it's stronger and progresses quicker. It's like "catching it late" for doctors.
But that’s not what the study is saying. It’s literally just saying that older doctors are more likely than younger doctors to have dementia.
Also that study only looks at dementia and Alzheimer’s only accounts for ~2/3 of cases.