"I'm gonna .... ask an entirely different, unrelated question"
I have watched quietly having dropped out and seeing each in turn avoiding addressing a main point I made way back.
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
I have also watched the psychology of producing all manner of reasons for not answering and for ignoring data which shows this in clear and unequivocal terms:-
eg. an illustrative line added to a graph showing the trend does not stop dead on the x-axis so all the official data can be safely ignored.
Not logical.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, spambuster, I'm willing to help you understand the criticisms of this analysis, but I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so. If you're interested, please let me know.
Said: "I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so."
Ditto.
So you and your colleagues should stop doing it.
What is your answer to a main point I made way back:-
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing".
It is a simple point. The data are clear.
It is no answer to claim an illustrative line added to a graph from a peer reviewed paper cutting the axes is justification for ignoring the clear trend.
The data tell us something to assist when judging the risk of disease against the risk of vaccines so it is wholly invalid to dismiss it for spurious reasons which do not stand up.
And to argue against is applying exactly the false logic and denial those who raise the issue are constantly and wrongfully accused of doing.
Look in the mirror.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spambuster: Cars are much safer now than they were 50 years ago, with better impact zones, more air bags, daytime running lights, and so on. I'm sure that even without wearing safety belts, people are safer unrestrained in a modern car than they would be unrestrained in a 50 year old car.
Does that mean that safety belts don't provide protection?
Obviously not. Just because cars are safer due to other factors, and we could make a graph with the line going steadily downward in car impact injuries and deaths due to airbags and crumple zones, we cannot simply ignore the OTHER data, which tells us that safety belts ALSO contribute to the overall safety of modern automobiles.
The same is true for your studies. It's true that general health is becoming better, as sanitation and food safety, among other things, becomes better.
It is ALSO true though, from DIFFERENT studies, that Vaccines DO provide protection against disease, and prevent illness and death.
You cannot look at a few graphs and logically jump to the conclusion that you have made. The graphs don't tell the whole story, and if you ignore the other data, you cannot find the truth.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Cars are much safer now than they were 50 years ago ..... Does that mean that safety belts don't provide protection?"
Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.
"... we could make a graph with the line going steadily downward ... we cannot simply ignore the OTHER data"
Agreed. Just as one cannot simply ignore essential data necessary in assessing the risks of disease against the risks of vaccines.
So to establish common ground and before one can get past first base, we have to look at the role vaccines are claimed to play compared to the role other factors play.
In a further endeavour to establish common ground I reiterate a main point I made way back and again ask do you all agree or disagree:-
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
For any dialogue to progress that hurdle must be passed. To ignore it is denying it.
The single most important contributing factor in combating death and injury from disease is clean water. Ensuring every child in the world has access to clean water should be WHO's highest priority above all others but it is not.
Running around ignoring the bigger issues and taking away a major cause of the problem is lacking in sense. "Hey, let's give them vaccines instead of fixing the bigger problem" is not an adequate response.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spambuster, it's pretty clear that you can't learn how to not be a troll, but please learn to use the quote function.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rappin' Ronnie Reagan [June 27, 2009 04:30 AM]
Thank you for the personal abuse:-
"it's pretty clear that you can't learn how to not be a troll"
As others have already indicated several times they would appreciate further discourse your hostile and inflammatory remarks are a tad out of place. I previously dropped out of the dialogue for exactly the reason you have provided now.
I have better things to do so I will revert to them now.
I find the "quote" function awkward, its formatting onscreen disruptive to the flow of the text. I have not complained about others' use of it.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me begin by saying that since his reemergence into the conversation, I have seen nothing wrong with Spambuster's posts except, perhaps, that he continues to make quotes difficult to read.
FYI: Above each post is a row of pictures, including a set of quotation marks. If you click on the quotation marks, you don't even ened to know the proper URL, it will simple do this for you:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: ".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
For any dialogue to progress that hurdle must be passed. To ignore it is denying it.
No one has been ignoring this. In fact, MightyCow addressed it head on. The data does not show this. All the data shows is a downward trend of mortality. The data itself does not inherently suggest WHY mortality rates were decreasing. The data itself does not inherently suggest that were one factor or another not introduced that the data would have continued to follow the path it did. This data shows results, not causes.
Why would you think that without vaccinations, the mortality rate would continue to decrease? What in the data suggests this at all? Graphs don't work on principles of momentum and inertia.
To show that vaccines have not done anything to help fight infectious diseases, you would need to do a controlled study showing them to be ineffective. But controlled studies show just the opposite.
What would be more compelling from a graph of general sickness and mortality rate trends over the past century would be a steady decline that leveled off and did not continue to decrease after the introduction of vaccines. But that's not what I see. All I can logically extrapolate from those graphs, assuming the data is correct, is that medical science has gradually improved our health and mortality rates over the past century. There is no why or how in it.
quote:The single most important contributing factor in combating death and injury from disease is clean water. Ensuring every child in the world has access to clean water should be WHO's highest priority above all others but it is not.
Running around ignoring the bigger issues and taking away a major cause of the problem is lacking in sense. "Hey, let's give them vaccines instead of fixing the bigger problem" is not an adequate response.
I'm not convinced that the WHO is ignoring anything. I can't imagine that the effects of dirty water has escaped their attention. I don't have insight into their reasoning processes, but I would imagine that they are interested in improving quality of life in as many ways as they can, and that it is very difficult to bring these changes to the third world.
But we weren't talking about third world data. Most of what you've been saying suggests (or implies) that you believe vaccinations in the UK, US, and Australia to be useless.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the WHO is entirely aware of that. For each disease and area, diseases are targeted with a variety of techniques, and vaccines are only one of many things that might be involved. Other times it is netting to keep mosquitoes away, or various sanitation procedures. It is a situational thing.
And, as Christine and many others, including myself, have mentioned, where do you prove that the downward trend would have been there without the vaccine? You show the downward trends before the vaccines, and the downward trends after the vaccines (which are often much steeper), but where do you prove that the downward trend from before would have continued without the vaccine in place? After all, the downward trend from before was not from one effect, but many -- and vaccines are yet another thing we have employed against disease.
Furthermore, you have not addressed the point that numerous studies have found holding all else equal, vaccines prevent disease (using randomized trials). That is direct proof that if we were to remove vaccines from the current population, more people would have disease.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, why appeal to studies outside the present data set when the graphs already shown demonstrate the efficiency of vaccines perfectly well? Just look at the measles cases per cap in the US! Drops like a rock when vaccines are introduced.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, Rakeesh, Bujold. I'm going to re-enter a supervisory position, and I'd like to channel a little Miles. (So to speak.) The honor part, not so much the maniacal fits of suicidal brilliance.
---
spambuster, I don't think you and I are going to find much satisfaction in direct conversation, so I'm going to direct my conversation to Papa Moose and others. I haven't any desire to make things more confusing than they are for any of us -- or try your patience directly any further, for that matter -- and heaven knows, my own fuse is pretty short these days. So I will be focused on other people's posts, not yours, and I apologize in advance for any discourtesy that comes with that.
---
King of Men, you are in my mind absolutely correct. However, I think people get kind of glazed over about these things -- I do, in reading them, and I think it's partly because someone new to the area may not know really what question it is that nags at the back of his or her mind, so it's hard for any party to tell when the question gets answered.
I've been mulling over the best way to do this. I have long intended to set up a side website for gathering together information that I want to keep handy, but I'm afraid that just shuttling people off to read another set of paragraphs is going to get us nowhere as far as answering the niggling questions.
Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the offer, CT -- I'm on my way out this morning for a week or so of vacation, and my time at computer will be limited. If such a dialogue occurs (with Wonder Dog, perhaps), I'll probably try to read it when I get back, and see if I still have any questions lurking in the recesses of my mind.
Spambuster, I'm glad you returned, and hope that the discussion here can continue unfettered by attack from any side (though I'd remind that attacking a person is different from attacking his argument).
I will say, though, that I'm curious on this point: Assuming continuing the graph would have worked without the advent of vaccinations (not granting it, but assuming it for argument's sake), could we then conclude that removing vaccinations now would return things to the predicted line as before? Or have we messed everything up already? It seems like we couldn't be sure that things would return to their original trajectory (a la Seldon's plan post-mule). Who is our Second Foundation and/or R. Daneel Olivaw? Would we need one?
[Janitor] Behave while I'm gone, folks, and recognize that response to whistles will likely be delayed. [/Janitor]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, Rakeesh, Bujold. I'm going to re-enter a supervisory position, and I'd like to channel a little Miles. (So to speak.) The honor part, not so much the maniacal fits of suicidal brilliance.
Goodness! You're re-entering supervisory work and for inspiration you're reading Miles Vorkosigan stuff? I know you're emphasizing the honor part, but man, that's playing with fire;)
I love all her stuff. Porter turned me on to it awhile back.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this kind of troll. They bust in here out of nowhere to show us all the errors of our ways. Then they get overwhelmed with arguments they have no responses for, so they make a grand show of leaving because we're beyond saving and not worth their valuable time.
Then, after they leave, they spend all of that valuable time lurking around the very same forum obsessively scanning and seething over all the responses from this group of idiots until they can't take any more and have to re-join the debate.
I wonder how much longer until Spambuster pitches another fit and storms back off into OCD lurker-land.
Classic behavior, dude. Don't give up--stomp out 3-4 more times and I'm sure we'll all join your anti-immunization cult. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Look in the mirror.
Just did. Staring back at me was a handsome, sexy dude, who has a more accurate view of vaccines and herd immunity than you do.
More importantly, the person staring me back in the mirror knows how, at least to some degree, to fight for his cause on an internet forum in a way which is not completely counter-effectual.
You have not yet mastered this art. Some would say you have not even begun to learn it at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. [Smile] Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
I am assuming you saw plenty of straightforwardly blatant errors when reading the site. You probably spent more time than me digesting it. Which graphs present untenable conclusions based on bad comparisons between graphs, and which graphs are outright read incorrectly?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.
I find this particularly interestgin, spambuster. You see, my wife is currently pregnant, so we've researched this issue a bit, and every bit of medical advice I can find recommends that pregnant women do wear seatbelts when riding in cars.
So if it is actually much safer for pregnant women to wear a seatbelt, as reported by the American Academy of Family Physicians and backed by several medical school studies, crash test studies, and so on, there is no good reason for pregnant women NOT to wear seatbelts. Any desire to do so is based on ignorance or misguided fear, unless there is a specific, diagnosed, extenuating circumstance for a particular woman.
I'm going to make the obvious parallel to vaccines. The graphs certainly don't show that vaccines are not effective. In fact, as King of Men pointed out, the graph suggests a strong correlation between vaccination and health.
Further, other studies HAVE shown the efficacy and safety of vaccines. You've mentioned vaccine risks a couple times, but it's certainly unclear what you believe those might be.
In your above statement, there turns out not to a real risk in pregnant women wearing seat belts properly - in fact, the risk is NOT wearing seat belts. I would argue that the same is true for vaccines. The fear of risk is not based in facts, but in emotion, and upon considering the reality of the situation, we can see that the REAL risk is not to vaccinate.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
I am interested in this. How do I start?
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am assuming you saw plenty of straightforwardly blatant errors when reading the site. You probably spent more time than me digesting it. Which graphs present untenable conclusions based on bad comparisons between graphs, and which graphs are outright read incorrectly?
I'm hesitant to go about this by stating specific conclusions, not because that's bad, but because I think it only serves to entrench polarization of views in this particular setting. I'm also shy on energy for doing the detailed analysis, and I want to use the time & energy I do have effectively. Curiously, that means doing it inefficiently, in my book.
But I promise you the end summary will include the details you ask for. And, of course, other people are free to carry on their own conversations around me.
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
I am interested in this. How do I start?
Fabulous!
A primary insight is that the answer is in the question. That is to say, the way the question is set up does about as much work as the facts of the topic in determining the answer. So, let's figure out the question(s) that are of concern here.
As a general dialogue -- not as anything you are committed to and cannot change, just feeling through the territory -- what is the big question (or questions) you have about the article or the topic in general?
At this point, vague is fine, as we can narrow down to key points by dialogue.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm hesitant to go about this by stating specific conclusions, not because that's bad, but because I think it only serves to entrench polarization of views in this particular setting.
Well if you do provide views (and don't feel compelled to if it isn't fun and interesting for you!) go ahead and consider it polarized. I want as much information thrown out involving this; the more credibly they can be asserted and referenced, the better.
Things I like to say involving even those debates which have sailed south are things like "While i think that these people are wrong and ridiculous, here's the points they make which are valid and need to be taken into consideration."
In this case, "these people" being vaccine denial folk. I'm ready and rearin' to see that some of their arguments hold validity, even if their most vocal advocates are unwilling/unable to see that any of their arguments aren't as rock solid as they were previously convinced of.
I live in Boulder, Colorado. I live in the heart of vaccine denial for the united states. I am confronted with the latest salvos about why Vaccines Are Bad And Evil And You Should Not Vaccinate Your Child Why Would You Do That.
I need to know as much as is possible how valid their arguments are. They come out with new ones every year. This seems to be the new tack.
This is pretty much an open challenge to the plenty of people here on this forum who can post coherently. What, if anything, on that site is a valid argument against vaccines. Spambuster if you learn to post coherently I'll even give you equal time as well!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ClaudiaTherese endeavours to present the appearance of a mature and calm approach to rational discourse.
My apologies to her for a diversion below.
Some of you folk just cannot control yourselves.
All designed to reduce any discourse to the level of the kindergarten schoolyard and put anyone who wants sensible debate off contributing.
Baron Samedi [June 27, 2009 01:29 PM] demonstrates derision and personal abuse which is fairly typical of the kind seen routinely - and in the line of personal baiting too - just too perfect - thanks Baron:-
quote: I love this kind of troll ..... I wonder how much longer until Spambuster pitches another fit and storms back off into OCD lurker-land.
Classic behavior, dude. Don't give up--stomp out 3-4 more times and I'm sure we'll all join your anti-immunization cult.
Completely pointless comments which add nothing of merit but much which is not.
And again "Baron Samedi" [June 27, 2009 02:01 PM]:-
quote:By the way, I made my last post in hopes that it would be quoted in some bizarre, unreadable format. Please don't let me down, Spambuster.
I'll be hitting F5 every 15 seconds until it comes up. I'm sure you can relate.
Baron Samedi - you seem to know how to use your fingers for more pleasurable methods of self-abuse. How about reverting to what you know better and leave the smarter stuff to the grown-ups?
If the obliquity is a smidge intellectual for you you could always come to Santa Barbara and try watching the grass grow. The fire department has been watering it a lot recently.
If that is too taxing there should soon be plenty of paint to watch drying too.
And these are the kinds of people we should listen to when deciding whether to vaccinate our kids - something which can end in death or permanent disability?
Hmmmm I see. Intellectual rigour? [mortis].
Then we have Samprimary who operates in a similar vein with wholly pointless personal attacks.
Not much of an advertisement for their contributions - a fairly hostile and hysterical approach instead it would seem.
Love it - keep it up folks.
Samprimary [June 27, 2009 01:39 PM]
quote:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Look in the mirror.
Just did .... the person staring me back ... knows how ... to fight for his cause ... in a way which is not completely counter-effectual.
You have not yet mastered this art. Some would say you have not even begun to learn it at all.
And more tosh and personally directed derision - which appears to be an attempt at simply baiting - nothing factual or any contribution of merit to informed discourse:-
posted
Good to see you, spambuster. Would you be interested in having a discussion now?
If so, I left a request on the table for you a few posts back; I'd appreciate it if you fulfilled it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Thanks Tom for your comment but as you can see I am a little busy with the children at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Good to see you, spambuster. Would you be interested in having a discussion now?
If so, I left a request on the table for you a few posts back; I'd appreciate it if you fulfilled it.
But there is no reason why you cannot respond whilst waiting to address a main point I made way back.
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
You seem shy of tackling this. I cannot imagine why?
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry spambuster, I've given up on you. I had hoped you'd be interested in discussion, but you ignore all the real discussions to pick fights and call names.
That's exactly why people are calling you a troll, because you are behaving poorly. Goodbye.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:.. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
1. Please provide evidence that anyone, either here or elsewhere, has claimed that vaccines alone are responsible for the steady decrease in disease mortality. Without such evidence, the statement above is a strawman argument. (From what I can ascertain, the position of medical professionals is that vaccines have played a large role in the reduction of disease, but it was only a piece of the puzzle. To claim that "Others say" vaccines were the sole cause is to misrepresent their position.)
2. Please describe how mortality statistics alone demonstrate the inefficacy of vaccines. (Note: my specific concern here is that such statistics do not take into account unvaccinated persons who survive an infectious disease, but not without major aftereffects. For example, Queen Elizabeth I of England survived smallpox, but she was left badly scarred; similarly, President F. Roosevelt survived polio but was paralyzed for the rest of his life. Neither of these cases would appear on a mortality graph.)
3. Using the data and graphs from the article and given that the trend was already moving downward, can you explain the point, put forth earlier by King of Men, that the introduction of vaccines produces a much sharper downward plunge than the trend would feasibly generate, indicating that vaccines are in fact having an effect on mortality rates (For example, on the graph 'United States Mortality Rates -- Measles, Scarlet Fever, Typhoid, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria' the line for Diphtheria begins with a large plunge following the introduction of the first antitoxin. This line continues downward, but the rate of change becomes smaller as time passes and the curve of the line begins to flatten. However, the line begins a much more rapid plunge, equivalent to the opening plunge, following the introduction of the Diphtheria vaccine in the early 1920s).
4. Although not part of the quote above, could you provide similar graphs detailing how the introduction of major advances in sanitation/general cleanliness (for example, water chlorination and fluoridation) coincides with disease reduction? I agree with you that they do, but I think your point--namely, that such advances did the real gruntwork of disease reduction--would be better made if you had evidence supporting it. The article seems primarily concerned with negating an opposing position, paying little attention to the promotion of its own position; both are necessary for a convincing argument.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I love all her stuff. Porter turned me on to it awhile back.
Me too, although I stuck with her fantasy stuff. More my style...but I might be ready to try the Miles stuff again. I tried it a long time ago, and didn't like the first one so I stopped, but I really liked Paladin of Souls and Curse of Chalion, and all of her Lakewalker stuff....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx [June 27, 2009 11:54 PM]: [QB]
quote:.. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
1. Please provide evidence that anyone, either here or elsewhere, has claimed that vaccines alone are responsible for the steady decrease in disease mortality.
First thank you for focussing on issues.
The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.
To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.
A major claim made to parents of benefit is avoiding the risk of death. [That has certainly been my experience as a parent albeit the approach is being modified. Health officials seem to be coming to realise people are finding out more for themselves - in part because reliable information from official sources is denied them].
Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
And if it is agreed, can we then endeavour to agree estimates of the extent to which on the most and least optimistic measures any of these vaccines are considered to save lives in a first world economy?
We do not have to agree on the final conclusions and we can agree to differ on various aspects. Dialogue should provide light and illustrate where differences of view lie.
But please do not expect me to respond instantly to everything. There is only one of me and I have other obligations. Do also excuse my not dealing immediately with all the points you raise in full.
I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.
You ask also:
quote:2. Please describe how mortality statistics alone demonstrate the inefficacy of vaccines.
The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.
If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.
When approaching such a point risk of the vaccines also becomes a more substantial consideration when comparing risk of the disease.
If you do not need to travel to China, that you can get there efficiently or at all is not a matter of practical relevance.
quote:3. .... can you explain the point .... that the introduction of vaccines produces a much sharper downward plunge than the trend would feasibly generate, indicating that vaccines are in fact having an effect on mortality rates
I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.
It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
We also need to ensure that what we are looking at is a real effect. When reported cases are relied on for example, changing fashions of diagnosis and physician belief can influence reporting considerably.
quote:the graph 'United States Mortality Rates -- Measles, Scarlet Fever, Typhoid, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria' the line for Diphtheria begins with a large plunge following the introduction of the first antitoxin.
At the present time I cannot undertake the degree of research to address this.
What I can say is that the corresponding picture for the UK where a large plunge is seen following what is commonly claimed to have been the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine cannot have been attributable to the vaccine for the reasons stated at the link here - and reliable references are provided there:- DIPHTHERIA MORTALITY England, USA & Australia
4. Although not part of the quote above, could you provide similar graphs detailing how the introduction of major advances in sanitation/general cleanliness (for example, water chlorination and fluoridation) coincides with disease reduction?
quote:Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
That ties in with better living conditions, which will include drinking water, sanitation and nutrition. Vitamin A for example is well-known to reduce mortality and morbidity from disease.
The example previously provided [albeit unreferenced] of clean drinking water being the primary factor in reducing mortality and morbidity from disease should not be ignored. I am sure references to this should be relatively readily available - it is well-accepted.
_____________________________ A prior post by ClaudiaTherese carried the admonition "I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap."
Similarly, I trust we can engage in dialogue without this being a "trap" either way but a genuine attempt to understand the issues even if we end by agreeing to differ.
And again, please do not expect instant responses. As you can see, if there is dialogue it may need time to frame requests as well as replies.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
Prometheus?
I think many of us were feeling like Sisyphus trying to get an honest conversation going. One step forward, crap, a bolder rolled on my head.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see most choose not to address the issues or engage in dialogue but to disrupt it.
Dialogue is met with hostile responses and personal abuse. Very helpful illustration.
Thanks guys.
MightyCow, rivka, [as exemplified below], Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, Baron Samedi, Samprimary, Catalyst among others have shown this.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow [June 28, 2009 02:55 AM]:
quote:[QUOTE]I think many of us were feeling like Sisyphus trying to get an honest conversation going. One step forward, crap, a bolder rolled on my head. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by rivka [June 28, 2009 02:34 AM]: IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
posted
You know, spambuster, your stature would be enhanced, not harmed, if you would just ignore or address once and then ignore, those you feel are engaging in hostile responses or personal abuse, in favor of engaging with those you feel are being serious and sincere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: And Tom has still not responded to the original point. He wishes to draw me on something he does not appear to wish to respond to first.
It this a kind of "trap" to which ClaudiaTherese was averting to in a prior post?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh [June 28, 2009 03:44 AM]: You know, spambuster, your stature would be enhanced, not harmed, if you would just ignore or address once and then ignore, those you feel are engaging in hostile responses or personal abuse, in favor of engaging with those you feel are being serious and sincere.
Many thanks Rakeesh.
There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.
If spelt out those who quietly read and not post can see for themselves who behaves in a rational reasoned manner and who does not.
There are also those who may wish to contribute in a calm and reasoned manner but choose not to when they see this kind of approach by others.
Those of us who are prepared to enter the fray do a service for those who prefer not to and provide an education as to the mentality of those who follow the majority line without questioning it.
Blair's and Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims illustrated how dangerous it can be to not question the majority consensus view.
And in science it is the minority - sometimes only one person - who shows the majority "consensus" is invalid - such as Barry Marshall over helicobacter pylori and ulcers.
I know it can be tedious to follow [but then I am not the one doing the disrupting and that aspect could end pretty quickly if others chose to make it so].
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hilarious that you're crying about personal attacks while dishing out quite a few insults yourself. Hypocritical much?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It is a bit late for you to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I see you take exception to the implication childish behaviour is childish via use of indirect reference to the "children"?
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan [posted June 28, 2009 04:22 AM]: I find it hilarious that you're crying about personal attacks while dishing out quite a few insults yourself. Hypocritical much?
And I am not "crying about personal attacks" but utilising them to benefit myself and others. Hence the numerous times I have given thanks for them.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I really liked the second one with specific numbers. If 16,400 people got the measles and 75 of them died, that's .45% of people who caught the measles that died. That sounds little - until you do the math with 300 million Americans.
Granted, we'd only lose that 1.35 million if we only had access to the same level of heathcare as poor, possibly illegal Latinos, but it puts the measles in developing countries scenerio in a new light. For me, anyway. (I like big pictures better when they come with numbers. )
This is one of the areas where medicine gets weird for me. How do we keep people from dying of viruses, anyway? We can't fix it. Do we just keep the symptoms from killing people until the disease has run its course? Why does treating the measles make people less likely to die, anyway?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I know you're emphasizing the honor part, but man, that's playing with fire;)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
