quote:Originally posted by spambuster: In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?
Yes we ought to. Yes we do. The SCIENTIFICALLY tested/determined answer (which just to happens to be the commonly accepted one) is that YES, the benefit outweighs the risk.
If you want to prove otherwise then you need to PROVE IT. Don't just assert it. And don't use a graph that specifically shows a decline in mortality at the time the vaccine was introduced as evidence that the vaccine isn't worthwhile - and especially don't use such a graph with an incorrectly drawn trendline.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And don't use a graph that specifically shows a decline in mortality at the time the vaccine was introduced as evidence that the vaccine isn't worthwhile
I don't know if the site has done this in a way which is wholly classifiable as a post hoc, but it seems like it so far.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"
I am very interested in hearing what you consider "substantial." If the incidence of per capita disease falls 80% thanks to basic hygiene and lifestyle changes, and vaccination drops it a further 50% (to a grand total of a 90% reduction), would you say that the vaccination -- which after all only had a 10% effect when compared to the pre-hygiene total -- was insubstantially effective?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson [June 29, 2009 09:44 PM]: I am very interested in hearing what you consider "substantial." If the incidence of per capita disease falls 80% thanks to basic hygiene and lifestyle changes, and vaccination drops it a further 50% (to a grand total of a 90% reduction), would you say that the vaccination -- which after all only had a 10% effect when compared to the pre-hygiene total -- was insubstantially effective?
Tom,
UK Measles mortality fell from a high of about 22000 per 55 million population [1902] to about 60 per 55 million [1968] before the vaccine was introduced.
That represents a drop of 99.8 %. So there could have been no 50% improvement in mortality from the vaccine.
also show that for about the next 20 years to 1987 the rate of decline of mortality continued at the same rate before the vaccine was introduced as after to about 7 per 55 million.
That is a total decline of 99.97% since 1922.
So the decline in measles mortality during these long periods appears unaffected by the introduction of the vaccine.
Do you agree that both those declines are substantial?
And if we can reduce disease mortality by nutritional means in such a manner then don't you think there must be alternatives to vaccination so that we do not have to put entire populations at risk of adverse vaccine reactions?
And measles is a "worst case".
For mumps, rubella, chickenpox, tetanus and more the public have to be told different stories to "sell" the proposition that it is so essential to have their child put at risk of adverse reactions.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
(A side note: I said a further 50%. Fifty percent of the remaining 20% would represent a 10% decline.)
quote:Do you agree that both those declines are substantial?
Oh, absolutely.
quote:And if we can reduce disease mortality by nutritional means in such a manner then don't you think there must be alternatives to vaccination so that we do not have to put entire populations at risk of adverse vaccine reactions?
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What are these "adverse vaccine reactions", and what are the statistics that back them up?
That is a good question. It is particularly pertinent because since the late 1980s we have moved into an era of a vastly increased schedule of multiple vaccinations particularly for children.
This is an issue which some professionals are quietly concerned about and dare not risk voicing their concerns publicly [and some of the posts on this forum alone show the kinds of hostility anyone risks by doing so].
There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
We have no "science" on this. At the same time the public is constantly being assured it is all fine whilst studies such as exist are misrepresented and some wholly misleading.
There are no placebo controlled randomised clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of any paediatric vaccines.
The trials carried out are ones testing a new vaccine against an existing vaccine for which similarly no such trials exist - in effect testing the new for safety against something of scientifically unknown safety profile. That is inappropriate.
Additionally, the trials which are carried out appear to be on healthy individuals whereas after marketing approval the vaccines are applied to all in a "one size fits all approach" in practice with little regard in general to individual circumstances.
For an indication of what kinds of adverse reactions might be involved one can turn to Merck's data sheet for MMR II [see below] - but note that no data on the extent of adverse reactions are given.
It is interesting that whilst the potential adverse reactions are meant to be listed "in decreasing order of severity", death is listed last.
And note also that the evidence relied on for saying a causal relationship has not been established is based on data on "healthy individuals" [whatever that term is meant to mean].
It is also of interest to note that diabetes mellitus is included. Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
ADVERSE REACTIONS The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality, within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
Body as a Whole Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
Cardiovascular System Vasculitis.
Digestive System Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
Endocrine System Diabetes mellitus.
Hemic and Lymphatic System Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; leukocytosis.
Immune System Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or without an allergic history.
Musculoskeletal System Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia. Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also been reported following administration of MERUVAX II. Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed chronic joint symptoms.
Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),17,52,53 and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls, the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women. Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with normal activities.
Nervous System Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
Experience from more than 80 million doses of all live measles vaccines given in the U.S. through 1975 indicates that significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and encephalopathy, occurring within 30 days after vaccination, have been temporally associated with measles vaccine very rarely.54 In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out that "a certain number of cases of encephalitis may be expected to occur in a large childhood population in a defined period of time even when no vaccines are administered". However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases M-M-R® II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) 97393048 may have been caused by measles vaccines. The risk of such serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains far less than that for encephalitis and encephalopathy with wild-type measles (one per two thousand reported cases).
Post-marketing surveillance of the more than 200 million doses of M-M-R and M-M-R II that have been distributed worldwide over 25 years (1971 to 1996) indicates that serious adverse events such as encephalitis and encephalopathy continue to be rarely reported.17 There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its inherent higher risk of SSPE.55
Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic meningitis.
Respiratory System Pneumonia, pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
Skin Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis. Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema); swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site.
Special Senses — Ear Nerve deafness; otitis media.
Other Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.56
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, health-care providers and manufacturers are required to record and report certain suspected adverse events occurring within specific time periods after vaccination. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which will accept all reports of suspected events.47
A VAERS report form as well as information regarding reporting requirements can be obtained by calling VAERS 1-800-822-7967.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson [June 29, 2009 01:15 PM]: It seems to me that CT's observation that the graph has been read incorrectly is a substantial (and, as far as I can tell, entirely accurate) criticism of the proposition.
Why do you disagree? [/QB]
It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. CT has provided nothing to agree or disagree with - merely a bald proposition - like "God does not exist".
She appears to refer to all the graphs and has provided no example to back up what is a bald assertion which appears lacking in substance. Nor does she explain what she means.
It is entirely opaque.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What are these "adverse vaccine reactions", and what are the statistics that back them up?
There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
We have no "science" on this.
We have no studies that show any dangers from multiple vaccines, so why should I be worried about those? What reason DO we have to worry?
If you want to do a risk analysis, we have to know what the risks actually are. We already know what the risks of the diseases are - we have seen those for hundreds of years.
If you want to argue that the risks we don't know are greater than the risks we do know, isn't the first step measuring the risks you believe come from vaccines?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have any data on vaccine risks. A list of possible side effects and complications may sound worrisome, but if we don't know how frequently these occur, we have no way of accurately judging the risk.
Here are some interesting quotes from your own document, which I presume you intend to show the risks of vaccination:
"In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by vaccine."
"Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic meningitis."
"No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.56"
I bolded the last one, since I think it's the most important. In a study of 1.5 million MMR two vaccination recipients, over a period of 11 years, NOT ONE death or permanent sequelae (after effect) was reported.
I feel like you're providing evidence against your case. If there are no studies that show serious risk, and at least one huge study that shows no serious risk, how can we possibly argue that it's better not to vaccinate?
quote:There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
This is contrary to my understanding of the situation. What's your source on this?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
This is contrary to my understanding of the situation. What's your source on this?
In fairness, on this particular point, you're asking him to prove a negative. (That said, all it'd take is one citation on the other side to refute it.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Double-blind studies are not required for FDA approval, and they shouldn't be. Yet the claim that no one has done any is patently false.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
On a related note, can you find anything saying if the 25 or so vaccines in current use are tested for interactions with each other? Googling got me a lot of junk and an anti-vaccine message board.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That [Edit: the first study)] looks like a study on the ethics of how to experiment on children, Kwea, not a "study on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on on overall adverse reactions."
And the second study you linked doesn't answer the challenge either-- it concerns a single vaccination for a select group of children.
This is assuming I understand the challenge, of course...
quote:Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
And no one knows why. Do you have any reason to point the finger at vaccination programs?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: That makes a lot of sense, Kwea.
On a related note, can you find anything saying if the 25 or so vaccines in current use are tested for interactions with each other? Googling got me a lot of junk and an anti-vaccine message board.
I'm in class right now, so I don't have the time to look it up. I can tell you that there are a number of studies done comparing infection rates, side effects, asymptomatic side effects....but most of them are data collection studies. It isn't considered a good idea to TEST for those interactions on children, but data is collected each year on the total health of children who receive these vaccinations.
No link has ever been proven, or even hinted at, between these vaccinations and autism, or any other childhood disease. Not by any credible source, with anything resembling proof.
For example, autism is one of the main issues raised by vaccine protesters, but it isn't even clear why autism happens. There are several leading candidates, such as environmentala pollution (which has risen the past 50 years), particularily heavy metal toxins.
But the most likely cause for the rise of cases in autism is that in the past it was highly underreported and underdiagnosed. Look at past rates of mental retardation....how many of those were really autistic? If it wasn't even a diagnosis until 1943, and wasn't accepted as one by most doctors until the late 60's.
During the 1940's through the 60's the medical community felt that children who had autism were schizophrenic. This lack of understanding of the disorder lead many parents to believe that they were at fault...so how COULD there have been any cases diagnosed? We didn't even have the current definition of Autism!
Juvenile Diabetes....hmmm....most of our increase in Diabetes is type II, actually, and it has exploded recently. So much so that they have stopped calling type I juvenile diabetes because type II is now showing up at a higher rate than type I in young people.
I am sure that it has nothing to do with our modern eating habits. LOL MUST be those pesky vaccinations. It is well known, and has been for decades, that as weight increases the rate of diabetes rises. With our sedentary lifestyles and super-sized meals, we don't NEED another reason for the rise in diabetes. We already know, and have done multiple studies proving it, what causes diabetes type II. We also know how to control it...lose the weight.
We know, beyond a doubt, that weight increases are one cause insulin resistance, because fat cells have fewer insulin receptors than muscles do....and that is ONE cause of diabetes type II.
The actual mechanism of harm is still being studied....in hopes of developing a vaccine.
posted
From looking it up quickly on line, Type 1 diabetes (juvenile diabetes) actually incurs weight loss-- the two kids I grew up with who had it, neither of them had weight problems.
Type 2 diabetes, according to what I found online, normally occurs in adults, and can be controlled by diet and exercise.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From looking it up quickly on line, Type 1 diabetes (juvenile diabetes) actually incurs weight loss-- the two kids I grew up with who had it, neither of them had weight problems.
Type 2 diabetes, according to what I found online, normally occurs in adults, and can be controlled by diet and exercise.
Type I used to be called juvenile diabetes, but they are moving away from that.
Type I is insulin dependent, and those people will be on insulin for the rest of their life. Diet and activity levels are important for BOTH types of diabetes, but for several diffreent reasons.
Type II CAN require insulin, but doesn't always, and can be controlled by losing weight and diet. Often when a person loses the excess weight, the diabetes goes away. If they can't control their weight/diet, they MAY need insulin.
Type I is usually caused by beta cells in the pancreas failing....could be due to disease, or unknown reasons....and the body stops making insulin.
Type II is caused by the cells themselves becoming insulin-resistant. The amount of insulin doesn't necessarily change, but the body requires more and more of it to get results. This is caused at least in part because fat cells have fewer insulin receptors than muscle cells, so they can access less insulin at one time than other cells.
The reason type I was called juvenile is that that type use to show up commonly in juveniles. Even if you are born with a condition that kills the beta cells in the pancreas it takes a long time for the effects to be seen. Over 80% of your beta cells have to be killed (usually) for it to start to show up.
posted
*sits and twiddles thumbs while waiting for a single one of his points to be responded to*
Others have already noted that the very document you copy/pasted says risks from vaccines are so low as to be nearly nonexistent in relation to the risks from the diseases involved.
Btw, were you aware that there's been an increase in the occurrence of certain diseases recently among people in the US who have been not vaccinating their kids and the people near them (herd immunity being compromised)? In other words, whatever you think should have occurred with other effects reaching the same level of protection, it did not happen. The vaccines provides a level of protection greater than the levels of protection available under the same conditions. Furthermore, a large proportion of those avoiding vaccines are in the middle class, so it doesn't seem likely that even a massive campaign to increase standards of living amongst the poor would make it unnecessary for children to be vaccinated.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edited to add: This was one of the things I was going to discuss with Jamio, but we never talked much. It is something worth making note of in this context, and I remember well the day this was pointed out to me. Eye-opening.
On the other hand, my interest in this particular line of discussion is waning as my upcoming move is waxing, and I am on short enough fuse. So I'll leave this with the hope it may be useful and head out for some non-forum time. I will see y'all sometime after July 9, posting from a new coast on a new country.
---
Of note, "main causes of morbidity (disease) and mortality (death)" is a moving target. Once you tackle one fairly successfully, there is always something else to get sick and/or die from.
For example, a relatively successful program at treating heart and blood vessel disease means more people are dying of cancer these days. Why? They live longer, and cancer is more common in the elderly.
Yep, treating heart disease in a sense causes cancer.***
So before we had anti-cholesterol and high blood pressure medications, and before heart vessel bypass and stents and all that surgical jazz, you could say that cancer was a relatively unimportant cause of ill health and death because not that many people suffered from it. And you would be right! Cancer wasn't the issue, not then. But it would be a mistake from that to extrapolate that cancer would never be worth a major investment of time and money, because as we do effectively take care of heart disease (which has dropped something like 30% over the last few years), cancer raises in importance.
The critical period in US history for health management was getting clean water and other sanitary/hygiene improvements, along with a stable and diverse food supply. That's the first priority in a developing area, and it returns frankly enormous benefits. But -- that being intact -- as more people survive and do so longer, other disorders (such as SSPE) rear their heads and need to be dealt with.
There is always a cause of death. Always a cause of illness. It's like the many-headed hydra: chop one off, and two spring up in its place.
Unless you don't want progress, you cannot stop at just taking care of the one or two big things that have the most bang for the buck. Great. Then you are stuck in 1800s healthcare forever, and if people aren't dying of lack of access to a healthy living space with food and clean water, well, they are surviving to suffer from other things.
And you can tackle those other things with a new set of priorities, or you can just congratulate yourself that you made a big step way back when and to hell with the rest.
---
*** Just as being able to deal with trauma yields people who survive to face other health challenges. Survival through the childbirth arena means women face a whole new host of problems. But it wouldn't make sense to say to US women in her forties that "Yeah, sure, you're most likely to die of a heart attack which could be prevented, and there is that whole breast cancer thing, but quit whining. We took care of the death in labor issue pretty well, didn't we? So suck it up. The rest is gravy."
I've often wondered if the increase in certain health problems, especially allergies and asthma, are related to the fact that relatively unhealthy babies (who would have died years ago) are actually living to become children and adults.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your insight has weight. There is a name for the general phenomenon (when one cause of morbidity and mortality seems to increase just because another was effectively treated, and now we see that other issue uncovered), but I don't remember it.
As a footnote, in a post-apocalyptic early government scenario, I'd be lobbying for clean water and a stable food supply, not vaccinations, too. The priorities would be different. But thankfully this isn't the Thunderdome, and we don't have to act like it is. Time to move on to the biggest problems of today, given where we are today.
---
*grin
Such as motor vehicle accidents. There are a lot more of them than there used to be, too. Good thing we aren't stuck with (/without) the plan we had for dealing with them a hundred years ago. But yes, it would be true that -- back then -- motor vehicle accidents represented an infinitesimal burden on the health of the nation.
quote:The World Health Organization on Friday forcefully endorsed wider use of the insecticide DDT across Africa to exterminate and repel the mosquitoes that cause malaria. The disease kills more than a million people a year, 800,000 of them young children in Africa.
I'm not sure how many would later die from DDT-related illness. In fact, I'm not even sure how one could reasonably determine what that number may be.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the mosquitos in the area aren't DDT resistant, then spraying it will save around a million deaths a year (based on previous applications, it almost entirely eliminates malaria deaths compared to levels before application). It will harm many, many fewer people, even at the more outrageous estimates of how harmful DDT is to people.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not the intent. To get off first base we need to measure the effectiveness to be in a position to judge need and risk.
Whether or not the implication I described was the intent of the quote’s author, it is present within the quote. If you wish to continue presenting that quote to all and sundry, you must deal with what it implies, not simply push those implications aside as ‘unintended.’
If the author intends to say one thing but actually say another, I hope he is not surprised if people react to what heactually said – as far as I know, no one can read minds, especially over the Internet.
quote: The propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines whatever your view.
While you may see that statement as a starting point, I see it rather as the final conclusion of one side of the argument. This may be why we seem to be talking past one another.
quote: If that were the argument.
Does this assist?
Not really, no – because now I have absolutely no idea what your argument actually is.
The experiment I designed would, in a fairly simple way, test whether environmental controls or vaccination would prove more effective at preventing death (and though I didn’t state it clearly, assume that the disease is one that could be controlled by either environmental controls or vaccination). If the vaccinated group performed as well as the group given both remedies—even if the environmental controls group also saw as few cases—then it must be concluded that vaccination prevents disease. Thus, this part of the statement quoted—“vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality”—could be seen as at best inaccurate for the experiment, and at worst as maliciously false, given that the vaccine did provide just such a decrease in the group to which it was given.
quote: That appears to be what the historical data tell us.
Only if that is what you want it to tell you. I ask you this, as a comparative question: why does so much of the data regarding smallpox in the article deal with the disease toward the end of the 19th / beginning of the 20th century?
Let’s do a brief overview of smallpox before getting to my answer to that question. Smallpox likely emerged in human prehistory, and has been part of recorded history in places like China and India since before the birth of Christ. It is also a very nasty disease; according to Behbehani (1983), during the 18th century (the century in which a vaccine was discovered) smallpox killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans a year, for a total of 40 million dead in Europe in that century alone. That is not counting those who survived with debilitating results; approximately one-third of all blindness was the result of smallpox. It also, to this day, has no known cure. However, in 1796 Edward Jenner, noticing that the milkmaids of England almost never suffered from smallpox, experimented with the much less lethal cowpox virus and proved that variolation with cowpox would prevent the patient from catching smallpox. That is why the process is called vaccination—‘vacca’ is Latin for ‘cow.’
While I don’t know the actual answer to the question posed above—I’m still not a mind-reader, after all—I have a guess. Well, two guesses, but the first is that the data doesn't exist, which isn't helpful to either side. For my second guess, though, I’d guess that it has to do with the fact that Louis Pasteur’s work on germ theory did not become available until 1862, and Joseph Lister’s article on the uses of carbolic acid (the world’s first intended antiseptic and a precursor to all modern antiseptics and disinfectants) was not published until 1867. Since the use of disinfectants and an understanding of germ theory were the only major advances that could help control the environmental factors associated with smallpox, only after approximately 1870 could environmental controls be considered a factor in the reduction of smallpox—all reduction prior to that came as a result of vaccination. Other than the hand of God, nothing else could possibly have caused a drop in the mortality rates.
There is one smallpox graph, entitled “UK Smallpox Mortality Rates Compared to Scarlet Fever 1838 to 1890,” which contains earlier data. Not coincidentally, it shows a massive drop in smallpox mortality in the early part of the century—from 1838 to 1844 the mortality rate fell from about 110 deaths per 100,000 to less than 20, a drop of approximately 85%. If we take the arrow marking vaccination on the graph as indicative of the rate in 1798, then the fall was from about 145 to less than 20, a drop of approximately 90%. There were upward spikes, most notably during the great epidemic of the 1870s following the Franco-Prussian war (and believe it or not, England had one of the lowest death rates during that epidemic, a fact which is generally attributed to mandatory vaccination), but the trend of the graph is inexorably downward.
The data in the article may tell you that the risks of vaccination are not worth the rewards, but it tells me that smallpox mortality in England decreased 85% in six years following the introduction of vaccination, thirty years before any kind of environmental controls were available.
quote: Not what it says on the tin.
The article starts with the proposition that "official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"
Aside from the fact that, in at least the case of smallpox, this statement is incredibly wrong, how is that statement any different from “vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics,” which I wrote?
Unless you’re pointing out the author’s condemnation of all of modern medicine, which, ironically, includes the major advances in hygiene, environment, etc. that the author argues are in fact responsible for the drop in mortality. The author may have shot himself in the foot with that statement, but happily modern medicine does a pretty good job with bullet wounds to extremities, so he’ll probably keep the foot and be up and about in no time.
quote: I ask you, how many children with say, severe asthma should we risk to save the life of one child from measles?
You’ll need to provide some evidence that the asthma of a statistically significant group of children was the direct result of vaccination before I’ll even grant the premise of that question.
Speaking for myself, though, I will say this: if I knew that I could save myself from immediate and unavoidable death from measles by giving myself a severe case of asthma for the rest of my life, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. I might have asthma for the rest of my life, but I’d also have a life.
What you’re gambling with is the hope that the unvaccinated child won’t catch the disease, which can’t always be controlled with anything other than a vaccine. If the dice roll your way, the kid is never exposed and never suffers any kind of effect, from either the disease or the vaccine (if the vaccine has side-effects). If the dice turn up snake-eyes, though, the kid has a full-blown case of a disease known to kill children very quickly and which even modern medicine can’t always stop. You can roll those dice if you want, but I think I’ll pass.
quote: I have not seen where it contains an assessment of risk versus benefit applicable in 2009?
Nor does the article quoted by the original poster, whose data almost always stops at 1970 and who, for the most part, never concerns himself with risks vs. benefits (as the article deals entirely with vaccination as ineffective). Given that you quoted the article and that it covers the same time period at which most of the article’s data ends, its conclusions seem highly relevant to the discussion.
quote: Why does that lead you to conclude nonmetropolitan parents do not vaccinate? Vaccines are not claimed to be 100% effective by even the most enthusiastic proponents.
I quoted the paragraph in full—the important point is at the end. However, if vaccination is the best control of a particular disease and one definable population is experiencing many more incidences of that disease, it seems safe to conclude that they are not vaccinating at the same rate as other populations. There may be reasons for this—availability of the vaccine would likely be lower in rural areas of Latin America, for example—but the conclusion seems unavoidable.
quote: That is an hypothesis. In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?
True, it is a hypothesis. However, at this point so is the idea that vaccination poses a greater risk than its reward.
I would love to see data from this year, especially given that most of the article’s data stops 40 years ago. However, as CT pointed out, it’s incredibly difficult to track who is not giving vaccinations, so I won’t be surprised if you don’t find anything.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That [Edit: the first study)] looks like a study on the ethics of how to experiment on children, Kwea, not a "study on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on on overall adverse reactions."
And the second study you linked doesn't answer the challenge either-- it concerns a single vaccination for a select group of children.
This is assuming I understand the challenge, of course...
quote:Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
And no one knows why. Do you have any reason to point the finger at vaccination programs?
The first study explains, in part, WHY there aren't such studies.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
