Vaccines save lives?
Greg Beattie
I've named this "Vaccines save lives" because that seems to be the
catch cry of the pro-vaccine brigade. It's a claim we hear echoed
everywhere, and appears to form the heart and soul of the drive to
convince parents. If anyone here believes "Vaccines save lives" is
evidence-based, and would like to share that evidence, please do so.
My motivation came when Katie Brockie wrote about her belief in the
germ theory of disease as follows (on the "Germ theory" thread).....
"Why do I believe it? Becuase of the amazing effect that antibiotics,
modern hygiene, vaccines, and public health measure have had on saving
lives and preventing deaths."
Now, she didn't actually say that "vaccines" by themselves had an
amazing effect on deaths, but I think the implication was there so I
wanted to address it. We can easily examine mortality data to
determine the effect vaccines and antibiotics have had. I'll start the
ball rolling by submitting a graph of measles mortality in Australia
for the 100 years leading up to 1970 (which was when vaccination for
it started).
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter1/Fig1_measles.gif
Here we see a drop in mortality for which the term "amazing" would be
appropriate. Of course measles vaccine had nothing to do with it, as
it hadn't been invented yet. And given that measles is a so-called
viral illness, antibiotics (which became widespread in the 1940s) are
out of the picture too.
The graph doesn't attempt to illustrate the effect vaccination had of
course, but it does put it into historical perpective. In other words,
whatever the vaccine MAY have done was of little significance in
comparison to what happened prior to it.
Here's one for whooping cough.
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter1/Fig3_whoop.gif
Again, we can put the vaccine into perspective after viewing this. It
was only around for a small part of the decline. Also, the deaths had
been declining consistently for a long time already so the decline
after vaccination started was most likely expected.
I'll go a little further and say that after viewing a reasonable
amount of mortality data, I'm not convinced vaccination has had any
positive effect on deaths. What are others thoughts on this? Do
vaccines save lives? How often? What leads you to this conclusion?
Greg
JC
Dull and boring. Been over this. Greg's going back into history
again, looking at mortality figures which are influenced by soooo many
things, like, for example, intensive care. These figures pay no heed
to the incidence - morbidity - of the diseases. Of course, if parents
were only worried about deaths, that would be interesting, but once
again you fail to acknowledge that parents are worried about many more
things, such as will my baby with AFP have a good or a poor
prognosis. That depends on the diagnosis, which is something much
more specific than AFP.
Here you look at deaths, and ignore the people who suffered and
survived diseases, possibly with long term affects. go on - ignore
them Greg. Tis your style after all.
John
Heather Martin
we look at the worlds pandemics, regions of the world where disease
outbreaks occur and where endemic diseases remain, a commonality
exists. Do healthy people who wash their hands, drink clean water,
see their doctor and eat lots of fruits and vegetables and walk a lot
get sick with the same kinds of diseases as people who don't? If a
healthy immune system is what's needed to fend of disease ('cause
we're all born with an immune system that's designed for the job),
then why do we not look at that? What creates an UN-healthy immune
system? Pesticides, fluoride, radiation, GMO's, trans-fats, plastics,
smog, cigarette smoke, lack of sleep, lack of proper food, TOO MANY
VACCINES? In third world countries where all they eat is rice
(exaggeration to demonstrate a point), can we be surprised that
communicable diseases run rampant? Even in Western nations where the
rural population doesn't have a pharmacy or a doctors office for 200+
km's so you don't get nutritious food, instead you're eating Dorito's
and coca-cola instead of an apple for a snack, how does your immune
system fare? As a kid, I had measles, mumps and chicken pox and lots
of bouts with strep throat. It went around in the schools which is
why they have child vaccination programs, because whole classrooms of
kids would be sick at one time. But, you know, I survived it because
I was pretty healthy. Most kids do. And I bet you would see a
correlation between standard of living and death rates from childhood
diseases. Nowadays, doctors cite the need for vaccines on "herd
immunity", but forget that the herd already had some immunity BECAUSE
it's members got those diseases. Just my opinion.
Heather
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB
> .
>
Bek
sense to use mortality data? Are you saying that vaccines dont save
lives?
Bek
JC
Think about what saves lives, both in and out of hospital, and how
they've also progressed over the years. When comparing historic data
to today, you need to account for these confounders. We can save many
people now who would've died only 20 years ago. ECMO, for example,
saved many people from the H1N1 flu, but was only around in the last
10 or so years to any great extent. So there's some people who won't
appear in mortality figures, but still suffered a great deal and came
close to death, and would've died 20 years ago.
Following vaccination mortality is only part of the picture, and
morbidity also needs to be considered.
John
Bek
ago. You said,
confounders"
more unreliable than mortality figures.
Greg Beattie
it looks like no-one wants to support the old notion that "vaccines
save lives". Again, if anyone here really believes in it, please share
with us your reasons for holding such a belief.
JC, it makes no difference whether you think this is dull and boring,
or whether you feel incidence or morbidity are more appropriate. Here,
you are on a thread discussing mortality. It's called "Vaccines save
lives?" and my opening post, together with everyone else's comments
have been about whether vaccines save lives. If you want to contribute
meaningfully to that discussion then do so. Otherwise, there are other
threads. Better yet, why don't you start one about incidence? Bek has
already asked you the most pertinent question. "Are you saying that
vaccines dont save lives?"
Also, if you're using the term "confounders" in connection with the
two graphs I submitted, you're misusing it. I already stated the
graphs NO NOT examine the effect of the vaccine, therefore there are
no confounders. The graphs merely illustrate that whatever we might
possibly ascribe to the vaccine when it arrived, will be small at best
compared with what preceded it.
Greg
JC
I agree. I think morbidity is far more difficult to analyse. Perhaps
we could look at bed admission rates? Incidence rates? If we use
incidence, Greg will point out that diagnostic criteria change over
time as well. Whatever we use it'll be a blunt tool, so that's
probably one of the reasons why it's tempting to look at mortality
figures as Greg has done. Can you think of any way of putting
mortality figures then into "perspective"? How can we look at
historic mortality figures and at the same time account for better
medical care?
John
Greg Beattie
Hi greg,
"I believe vaccines and antibiotics have had little or no effect (let
alone an "amazing effect") on deaths."
Really? Consider this graph.
http://bit.ly/v3YHMT
It is the mortality rate from all causes, as documented in the GRIM
books. It describes a long slow decline in mortality figures, doesn't
it, which is the result of all sorts of things, from seat belt use,
better hygiene and nutrition, cleanliness, etc etc etc. Over the
years, the decline in mortality from all causes is something that is
well documented. Now take a look at this graph:
http://bit.ly/u9yJql
It's remarkably different, isn't it. Why is that? Why is it that
mortality from all infectious causes fell much faster than mortality
from all causes, especially in the period from the 1950's and
onwards. Why is that?
Use the first graph as your yardstick, and then consider the second.
Why the difference? What is different about the treatment of
infectious diseases that does not apply to all cause mortality?
John
Greg Beattie
Great. So it's no longer dull and boring?
I'm surprised an epidemiologist would ask me why the ALL-CAUSES ALL-
AGES death rate has fallen slower than the infectious disease death
rate. The reason is everyone born will die at some time and be
recorded in the ALL-CAUSES death rate. But ever since the industrial
revolution we have increasingly avoided being part of the infectious
diseases death rate. It has a lot to do with the age distribution of
the population. Did you know that the ALL-CAUSES ALL-AGES death rate
of developing countries can be lower at times than that of developed
countries, even though their infectious disease death rate is way
higher?
The reason the ALL-CAUSES ALL-AGES death rate has also fallen in
Australia is because we have increased our life expectancy. If we want
to evaluate our progress with infectious diseases using ALL-CAUSES
death data, we should select an age group which is younger than our
expected life-span for a start. For instance, the most often-used ALL-
CAUSES death rates when evaluating a community's health status are the
infant (under 1 yr) mortality rate and the child (under-5) mortality
rate. These are both age groups that are expected to be ALIVE, so
their deaths may be considered 'preventable'.
Here's a link to an ABS graph of infant mortality for Australia during
the 20th century (scroll down to first graph).
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/d37892d01d1832c3ca2570ec000ace6e!OpenDocument
To compare all-causes to infectious diseases let's select children
(under-5 age group, plotted from the same GRIM books you presented):
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/other/AllUnder5.png
Note: two separate scales on Y-axis. Also note that the Depression
years (starting in 1930) are clearly visible in this graph. Declines
before and after the Depression were steep, but during it they
levelled out.
Or, if we wish to look at ALL ages we could select specific illnesses.
Since we're looking at the effect of antibiotics and vaccines, and
wondering how we might control some of the confounders, let's take
measles and compare it with whooping cough. Measles, as I mentioned
above, is a so-called 'viral' illness and there was no vaccine until
1970. Therefore neither antibiotics nor vaccines will have affected
the period prior to 1970. Whooping cough on the other hand is both
bacterial (hence antibiotics play a role) and it had a vaccine (also
introduced during the 1940s), so we should see the "amazing" effect
clearly from the 1940s onward.
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/other/MeaslesWhoop.png
You will immediately notice the trends for both whooping cough and
measles around the 1940s are remarkably similar, even though one had
the benefit of both antibiotics and a vaccine, and the other had
neither. Of course, the death rates for both of these were already
very low compared with the period prior to the graph, as we saw in my
earlier post.
BTW - everyone is welcome to reproduce or share my graphs. The
copyright declaration is something I use only to identify their
origin. When I first published graphs 15 years ago I had a problem
because they didn't have my name on them, and people thought they came
from the ABS or health department. When they made enquiries the
response was "There are no such graphs". This way there's no
confusion.
Greg
On Nov 8, 9:50 pm, Greg Beattie <pcmedics...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reposting this from the "Germ theory" thread:
>
> Hi greg,
>
> "I believe vaccines and antibiotics have had little or no effect (let
> alone an "amazing effect") on deaths."
>
JC
That was a really long thread that reached no point whatsoever.
Breathtaking. Try and consider the point I was making - mortality
figures have reduced due to many many reasons over the years, and that
includes whooping cough and measles. Your graphs also display the
dramatic drop off in mortality that occurred in the 1950's, more so
than all cause mortality. Why Greg? Have you considered intensive
care, perhaps? Better hospitals?
Why don't we look at a disease that a vaccine has had an enormous
effect on in recent times? Like meningococcal disease. And why don't
we look at morbidity a little.
Take a look at
http://bit.ly/sK5p5N
Fig 3.7.1 clearly shows a seasonal variation, and that it was on the
increase at about 2002. After that, it tails off. Why?
In 05-07 there were 904 hospitalisations primarily for meningococcal
meningitis, but only 32 deaths. Your mortality graphs do not address
the 872 patients that didn't die, that spent an average of 5 days in
hospital. How many of them were close to death? How many have been
left with permanent neurological sequelae such as vision or hearing
impediments, or learning difficulties that we know follow this
disease? We don't know from this article, but we can say that they
don't appear in mortality graphs.
So what effect does vaccination have? Remember, short time periods,
confounders like hospital care left unchanged. "Between 2002 (before
the national meningococcal C vaccination program commenced) and 2007,
serogroup C disease notifications decreased by 92% from a peak of 225
in 2002 to 19 in 2007 (1.15 to 0.09 per 100,000 population) (Figure
3.7.4)". That's the effect of the vaccination program. Right there.
Follow the red dashes in the graph Greg.
You might again argue that it was on the decline anyway, but serogroup
B disease notifications decreased by only 27% from a peak in 2002 of
294 to 213 cases in 2007 ". So ONLY MenC disease rates were effected.
So there's real world figures, explained as simply as I can. Yep -
vaccination saves lives.
John
JC
In the pre-vaccination era, there were at least 500 cases of Hib
disease and 10–15 deaths annually among Australian children aged <6
years. At present, the number of cases reported in Australia for all
ages is around 20 per year, a reduction of over 95% from the pre-
vaccination period. (Clinical Microbiology Reviews 2000;13:302-317 and
Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2008;32:316-325).
Vaccines saves lives.
John
JC
You could always look at what happens when you withdraw vaccination.
According to you Greg it should have no effect.
In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed
by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths
by 1978.
In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70%
to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in
1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979.
In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children
0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
Shall we turn into another? Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in
the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://1.usa.gov/vQZMhr
Hmmm. So introducing vaccinations reduces the incidence and mortality
of a disease (MenC, HiB). Withdrawing vaccines increases the disease
that the vaccine was designed to protect.
Yep - vaccines saves lives.
Bek
Pertussis rates have gone through the roof.
Bek
On Nov 9, 11:31 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Greg
>
> You could always look at what happens when you withdraw vaccination.
> According to you Greg it should have no effect.
>
> In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed
> by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths
> by 1978.
>
> In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70%
> to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in
> 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979.
>
> In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children
> 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
>
> Shall we turn into another? Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in
QldKiwi
at the graph as a whole, the lines rise and fall dramatically, but
what you are saying is to look at a small area when the figures were
dipping again and you claim that the reason is vaccines. It is like
looking at a weather graph and saying that the reason why the
temperatures dipped at that particular point was because of global
warming/cooling and human activity, but you don't conclude that the
temperatures had been doing this for years.
increase at about 2002. After that, it tails off. Why? In 05-07
there were 904 hospitalisations primarily for meningococcal
meningitis, but only 32 deaths. Your mortality graphs do not address
the 872 patients that didn't die, that spent an average of 5 days in
So what effect does vaccination have? ...Between 2002 (before the
serogroup C disease notifications decreased by 92% from a peak of 225
in 2002 to 19 in 2007 (1.15 to 0.09 per 100,000 population) (Figure
3.7.4)". That's the effect of the vaccination program. Right there."
phrased this was like talking to a child. I know there is a lot of
slinging at each other but generally it seems like you are the only
one that tries to demean others. Consider this as a complaint.
I think we get your message so there is no need to repeat again - not
everyone that has contracted a disease has died, but there are people
that have been left badly affected by the disease. There, now we can
move on.
I would really like to see debate continue so that we can be informed
of both sides, and be able to ask questions. But if you continue to
demean people by asking something that you consider silly, then people
aren't going to ask. Therefore, the message you are really
communicating is "I am right and you are wrong." Do you really
believe that this sort of attitude is ever going to win people over to
accepting vaccines?
JC
Are you talking about table 3.7.1? Did anything else change after
2002 that effected not only all cases of meningococcal disease, but
also specifically and dramatically MenC serotype? Can you think of
anything else that changed, like hospital treatments, sanitation,
diet, nutrition? Remember, we're looking for a reason why one
particular serotype would decrease. I'm suggesting it's the MenC
vaccination, as all other confounders remained the same, unlike Greg's
historic graphs. Same goes for Hib.
I don't get jollies talking down to people. It comes naturally.
John
JC
By naturally, I mean it comes across that way out of the frustration I
feel reading the posts on this site, and on sites like it. I'm also
glad to be in an atmosphere of debating, as opposed to bullying. I am
not attempting to bully, and please accept my apologies to anyone,
even punter, if I come across that way. It is difficult when talking
to people who's arguments fly in the face of science to maintain
composure. As I said though, it's fun being part of a debate.
Debating, and being challenged, gives me jollies.
John
QldKiwi
Bek
likley (or blatently told not) to diagnose MenC?
With regard to HiB, how can we know weather the vaccine is working or
not? We cant test every single person for HiB
Bek
Greg Beattie
This thread is called "Vaccines save lives?" yet you continue to focus
on incidence, and reports of the occurrence of certain bacteria. How
often meningococcus and Hib bacteria are detected in laboratories may
be of interest to you, but it has little to do with whether vaccines
have reduced deaths. The only death data you contributed was poorly
misinterpreted by you.
I'll respond to your post anyway. Regarding the meningococcal and Hib
data... I will submit death data for meningitis and septicaemia in
Australian children (under-5-year-olds). Two graphs for meningitis
first:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/other/Men1907under5.png
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter6/Fig31_Men60under5.gif
As I did at the start of the thread, the first graph puts the vaccines
into historical perspective, and shows that whatever influence they
did exert on deaths was insignificant compared with what preceded
them. The second one zooms in on the period immediately surrounding
introduction of the vaccines. I'll leave it to everyone to determine
for themselves whether the vaccines saved any lives.
Next, to septicaemia:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter6/Fig33_Sept1907under5.gif
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter6/Fig35_Sept80under5.gif
Again the first is the larger historical view, and the second zooms in
on the period surrounding introduction of the vaccines. Neither seems
to offer much to support the notion of vaccines saving lives but
again, I'll leave that up to everyone to make their own minds up
about.
Now, to the obvious question: why does this data seem to conflict with
what you presented earlier? Well, for a start, your meningococcal data
didn't really show much effect. Second, it covered a very small slice
of time. Third, they were germ reports -- note: meningococcus and Hib
(germs), rather than meningitis and septicaemia (illnesses).
Thanks
Greg
On Nov 9, 9:31 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Wow Greg,
>
> That was a really long thread that reached no point whatsoever.
> Breathtaking. Try and consider the point I was making - mortality
> figures have reduced due to many many reasons over the years, and that
> includes whooping cough and measles. Your graphs also display the
> dramatic drop off in mortality that occurred in the 1950's, more so
> than all cause mortality. Why Greg? Have you considered intensive
> care, perhaps? Better hospitals?
>
> Why don't we look at a disease that a vaccine has had an enormous
> effect on in recent times? Like meningococcal disease. And why don't
> we look at morbidity a little.
>
JC
This claim is a often touted explanation for decreases in diseases.
It is not consistent though with the practicalities of diagnosing
MenC. Consider someone who comes in septic. A doctor takes off CSF
and/or blood and sends it to the lab. We don't ask to have it tested
specifically for MenB but not C. We ask the lab to identify the
organism and report the sensitivities of that organism to
antibiotics. If the lab (under the influence of some conspiracy)
decided not to test for MenC, not only would it be outrageous, but
then they'd be returning a lot of samples as "Neisseria meningitides"
without a serotype. Like I said, it's an explanation that doesn't
hold up to much scrutiny.
We also know, from the previous reference I posted, that MenB
incidence decreased at a rate consistent with seasonal variation,
whilst MenC dropped far quicker. Look at table 3.7.4. Labs were also
becoming very good at making sure they identified the serotype - see
how the "not recorded" group fell? If they were not testing for MenC,
then that line should be rising as they would not be identifying the
serotype. What other explanation could there be?
As well, (gasp), if your theory is correct, we shouldn't be picking up
any "vaccine failures". But we do. Six cases from 2003-2007. If we
weren't testing for MenC in the vaccinated, how would we pick these
up?
That claim is simply another theory put forward, but one which holds
little water when critically examined.
John
Heather Martin
teach others who may not know everything you do. That is quite an
honor for most people rather than an annoyance. It is also important
to ask questions as well as answer them in a way that is respectful.
There can be no debate when only one person knows everything.
Eventually people stop asking questions of you (generic) when you come
across as knowing everything already and being closed minded to other
views. As for science, I don't hold much stock in it these days as a
means of backing an argument as you have pointed out with Wakefield.
Science railroads ethics and morals when it sees what it wants and
then goes for it.
BTW, thank you for your candor. I too appreciate your apology.
Heather
JC
Yet again you've fallen into your own trap of combining diseases under
one umbrella. Meningitis has several different causes, as does
septicaemia. Vaccinations only affect one cause of these diseases, so
that of course your graphs are meaningless. Not only that, but once
again they demonstrate you've failed to acknowledge any benefits we've
gained from modern medicine. The graphs and your explanations are
trying to be inflammatory, when in actual fact they do not demonstrate
anything that I've not already addressed. Do you have anything new?
John
Greg Beattie
My graphs are inflammatory??? That's a laugh!
The word is "confronting". Perhaps "alarming". You call them
inflammatory because they fly in the face of standard medical thought.
But guess what... they are facts. No opinions in there. And it doesn't
matter what your school taught you were the various causes of these
illnesses. The fact is your vaccines and antibiotics appear to have
done nothing in the way of saving lives. No doubt that incenses you,
but it is ridiculous to call the graphs "inflammatory"?
Look at the link you provided for the meningococcal info. It mentioned
three illnesses that these germs supposedly cause. Well, I had data on
the two major ones so I presented it. Prior to the Hib vaccine it was
assumed most cases of bacterial meningitis were caused by Hib, the
remainder being shared predominantly by meningococci and pneumococci.
So it was thought that controlling these microbes would all but wipe
out meningitis. The added benefit was that we would deal a savage blow
to septicaemia and a few other conditions as well.
Well, there are the vaccines, and now we see their effect.... well, we
would if there was one to see. In fact, it looks like we went
backwards with septicaemia. So, either the vaccines didn't deal with
the germs, or the germs were not the problem. Which do you want?
(Hint: the data you presented indicates the first option is out).
Perhaps you have alternative explanations for this situation. Either
way, face the facts and don't run from them by shouting "inflammatory"
as if I've somehow broken the rules. Be prepared to have your
preconceptions challenged. If they're worth holding on to they will
help you out with a good explanation. Maybe they are the very things
you should be examining.
Greg
JC
I don't find your graphs inflammatory, but I find your explanation of
them and the conclusions you draw based on several large assumptions
that you don't acknowledge, and you seem bent of drawing unfounded
conclusions from them. You once again go on your merry trip of
quoting historic mortality figures without acknowledging the fact that
mortality rates have fallen for all disease as well. Then you go on
to your even greater fallacy that all cars are Holdens. It's stupid,
Greg, that's all, and you do it to prove a point that has little
basis.
Why don't you look at morbidity figures, such as admissions, or look
at specific diseases?
"Between 2002 (before the national meningococcal C vaccination program
commenced) and 2007, serogroup C disease notifications decreased by
92% from a peak of 225 in 2002 to 19 in 2007 (1.15 to 0.09 per 100,000
population) (Figure 3.7.4)".
Why don't you? Because they fly in the face of what you're trying to
prove. How do you explain the jump in illness rates when vaccination
rates fall? http://1.usa.gov/vQZMhr
John
Greg Beattie
them and the conclusions you draw based on several large assumptions
that you don't acknowledge, and you seem bent of drawing unfounded
conclusions from them. You once again go on your merry trip of
quoting historic mortality figures without acknowledging the fact that
mortality rates have fallen for all disease as well. Then you go on
to your even greater fallacy that all cars are Holdens. It's stupid,
Greg, that's all, and you do it to prove a point that has little
basis."
I think you've got things mixed up. I DO acknowledge that mortality
rates have fallen for all diseases. In fact... that's my point. The
data suggest we have done NO better with vaccines than without. It
seems you don't see this simple point.
Vaccines are claimed to have saved more lives than any other medical
intervention. Antibiotics follow closely behind. Surely, taken
together we should expect to see something dramatic in the mortality
graphs. But we don't. That's the negative side of the debate so far. I
can add more... but I'm waiting for SOMETHING from the positive
first.
It's your job to present the positive. Is "vaccines save lives"
evidence-based? If yes, then please show us the evidence. The
mortality data I've presented suggests it isn't. I suppose your germ
reports count for something i.e. how many sick people had a particular
microbe in them. But they are a bit abstract and require a strict
faith in the germ theory to have any meaning whatsoever. Also, they
are not about deaths, which is the theme of this thread. And I think
the final nail for them comes when we observe no such effect in the
'non-germ-specific' data.
You've tried also with the Nigerian example of polio. Once again, it's
not mortality data and therefore has no bearing on the question raised
in this thread. The other problem is that it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny, because the illness of concern (paralysis) did not change
when the vaccination rate changed - check this for yourself at the WHO
polio case count http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/diseases/poliomyelitis/case_count.cfm
Your Nigerian example really belongs in the "Polio in China" thread -
it's the same story.
So on the positive side we're left with.... what? For such a widely
accepted statement, there seems precious little to back it up. I
started this thread to fish for the evidence. The whole case for the
usefulness of vaccines is supposed to be evidence-based. Given that
this is the most fundamental (and appealing) aspect of the push to
vaccinate, the evidence should be abundant. Can you provide any of it?
Without it we only have the mortality figures (I know... who'd-a-
thought of looking at mortality figures to see if an intervention was
a life saver???) and they make the claim look baseless.
Thanks
Greg
JC
How do you explain the resurgence in diseases when vaccination rates
decrease?
John
Greg Beattie
What makes you think there is a resurgence in disease when vaccination
rates fall? Since this thread is about deaths, why don't you provide
us with evidence that lowering vaccination rates leads to an increase
in deaths.
Thanks
Greg
JC
Why do you have this obsession with mortality figures? Don't the
people who suffer illness yet recover matter to you? You never pay
any heed to morbidity, incidence or admission figures, but rely on
mortality figures which, as previously demonstrated, rely very much on
several confounders. But you want evidence of increasing mortality
figures with decreased vaccination rates right?
"By 1976 only 1 in 10 infants were getting vaccinated. In 1979 Japan
suffered a major pertussis epidemic, with more than 13,000 cases of
whooping cough and 41 deaths."
"Ireland saw measles soar from 148 cases in 1999 to 1200 cases in 2000
when MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) immunization rates dropped to
76% in response to concerns of a link between MMR and autism. Several
children died in this outbreak."
http://bit.ly/tLpUOs
"Measles has reappeared in the United Kingdom, with 449 confirmed
cases to the end of May 2006 compared with 77 in 2005, and the first
death since 1992."
http://1.usa.gov/uDpFYc
"1,500 cases and three deaths were reported in the Irish outbreak of
2000, which occurred as a direct result of decreased vaccination rates
following the MMR scare."
"Beginning in April 2009 there was a large outbreak of measles in
Bulgaria, with 23,791 cases, including 24 deaths, reported up to 28
July 2010."
http://bit.ly/vzIMWC
And here's a study of what happens when small communities, like that
in northern NSW, let their vaccination rates drop:
"In 2003 and 2004 two measles outbreaks occurred in Jewish ultra-
orthodox communities in Jerusalem. The index case of the first
outbreak (March 2003) was a 2-year-old unvaccinated child from
Switzerland. Within 5 months, 107 cases (mean age 8·3±7·5 years)
emerged in three crowded neighbourhoods. The first cases of the second
outbreak (June 2004) were in three girls aged 4–5 years in one
kindergarten in another community. By November 2004, 117 cases (mean
age 7·3±6·5 years) occurred. The virus genotypes were D8 and D4
respectively. Altogether, 96 households accounted for the two
outbreaks, with two or more patients per family in 79% of cases. Most
cases (91·5%) were unvaccinated. Immunization coverage was lower in
outbreak than in non-outbreak neighbourhoods (88·3% vs. 90·3%,
P=0·001). Controlling the outbreaks necessitated a culture-sensitive
approach, and targeted efforts increased MMR vaccine coverage (first
dose) to 95·2%. Despite high national immunization coverage (94–95%),
special attention to specific sub-populations is essential."
http://1.usa.gov/rRYXCP
So Greg, there you have examples of deaths, as well as incidence,
increasing with decreasing vaccination rates. And a bonus study
demonstrating that when an outbreak occurs, it usually affects those
that are not vaccinated. There's plenty more studies just like that
one, especially at the moment from Switzerland and France, but I'm
sure you already know that.
John
Greg Beattie
1. Why do I have an obsession with mortality figures?
Again, my requests relate to mortality because that's what this thread
is about. But as well as that, it's the only data we have (except for
rare exceptions). We don't have incidence data (you quoted
notifications - NOT incidence). The suggestion that I don't care about
people who get sick is a poor man's argument.
2. What does your 'evidence' tell us about the relationship between
vaccination and deaths?
Nothing. You've gone close by mentioning a figure for deaths and
claiming vaccination rates were down before it. That's like someone
arguing the sales figures are up by presenting this month's figure
only. Remember, we need a series of previous figures to gauge an
increase or decrease. One figure means nothing without the previous
ones. Show us a time series of deaths over a period (like I did).
Your info provided the following:
Japan: one figure
Ireland: no figures
UK: one figure (for one death in a previously severely ill person)
Bulgaria: one figure
Jerusalem: no figures
And you say -- "So Greg, there you have examples of deaths, as well as
incidence, increasing with decreasing vaccination rates." Sorry....
NONE of them document an increase in deaths.
3. What does your 'evidence' tell us about the relationship between
incidence and vaccination?
Nothing. The data you quote are not incidence figures but
notifications, which are a poor proxy for actual incidence. Still, you
may wish to use them. If so, you will have to accept that the recent
global push for polio vaccine has led to a 5-fold INCREASE in
paralysis... because that's what the notification data tell us. I
imagine that would be wholly unsuitable for your argument.
Either way, this thread is not about incidence. It's about vaccines
saving lives. If you want to discuss incidence I've asked you already
to start another thread about that. I'll join in, don't worry. And if
you want to discuss the suitability of using notifications as a proxy
for incidence why don't you go to the "Graphs graphs and more graphs"
thread. My question about that still outstanding.
https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/ea8c0bd00a37120c?hl=en
Now, if you could please give us the evidence of vaccines saving lives
we can stand it up beside what I've presented for comparison.
Thanks
Greg
JC
In case you wonder about the effect of the measles vaccine...
http://bit.ly/98bRl8.
Worldwide figures now Greg, and death rates too - your favourite.
"In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450
deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with
weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between
2000 and 2008 worldwide.
In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of
measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health
services – up from 72% in 2000."
Let me summarise - vaccination rates went up from 72% to 85% 2000 to
2010, and deaths fell by 78% from 2000 to 2008.
You can get an even better handle on cases and vaccination rates here
http://bit.ly/kzsrZc
What happened Greg? Vaccination rates went up and cases went which
way Greg? Can you explain it? One hell of a coincidence Greg, don't
you think?
John
Greg Beattie
I don't blame you for thinking those figures are real, but they're
not. They are complete fabrications presented in a very misleading
way. In my opinion this is some of the best fodder there is for belief
in a conspiracy. Do you have any idea where these figures come from?
(Hint - no-one knows how many measles deaths occur in developing
countries because no-one is counting.)
These figures are calculated on a spreadsheet by researchers from the
Measles Initiative. Their formula is based on the assumption that
measles vaccine prevents 85-95% of measles deaths. As vaccination
rates go up and are entered into the spreadsheet, the formula sends
measles deaths down. They are complete fabrications - literally.
To verify this, go to their original report:
http://www.measlesinitiative.org/mi-files/Reports/Measles%20Mortality%20Reduction/Global/Wolfson%20Lancet2007_Measles_Mortality_Reduction.pdf
Then read this commentary about it from the head of WHO Health
Evidence and Statistics:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/6/07-042887/en/index.html
Finally, please consider what you might be able to do (as an
epidemiologist) about correcting the false impression given by these
stories. There must be a lot of people using these 'figures' in the
just the way you are to prove a point, all the while not knowing that
they are complete fabrications.
Thanks
Greg
On Nov 16, 9:21 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I'll kept this one simple Greg, and anyone else out there listening.
> In case you wonder about the effect of the measles vaccine...
>
> http://bit.ly/98bRl8.
>
> Worldwide figures now Greg, and death rates too - your favourite.
>
> "In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450
> deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
> More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with
> weak health infrastructures.
> Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between
> 2000 and 2008 worldwide.
> In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of
> measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health
> services – up from 72% in 2000."
>
> Let me summarise - vaccination rates went up from 72% to 85% 2000 to
> 2010, and deaths fell by 78% from 2000 to 2008.
>
JC
conspiracy theory. It took you a while to get to it, but thanks. Your
criticisms are both inflammatory and unjustified. Even if there is an
error in the figures, it's not going to be anywhere near the scale to
produce that kind of reduction in mortality. AND the conspiracy theory
also negates your own sacred graphs.
Yep - there's a conspiracy Greg, to rid the world of vaccine
preventable disease. Wake up and smell the roses.
John
punter
where either: a) computer models have gotten it wildly wrong; or b)
bureaucrats have engaged in groupthink.
JC
There may be lots of cases of that in human history. That doesn't
mean this is one of them.
John
Greg Beattie
My graphs were plotted from empirical data - actual registered deaths.
The data you presented are nothing of the sort. They are based on
spreadsheet modelling, but it is much much worse than that, because of
the way you are using them. If the estimates were based on surveys of
deaths or something similar, that would certainly be meaningful
evidence. But guess what these are based on?
The authors actually sat down and thought about how to estimate
measles deaths. They said "OK. Let's assume everybody gets measles.
Let's also assume vaccination prevents 85-95% of this." From there
they simply added up all the measles vaccine dispensed and then
'calculated' how many lives were saved.
So, the data you are trying to put forward as evidence that the
vaccine prevents deaths, was actually generated by assuming that it
does so. Go ahead and read the links I gave you. It's all documented.
And please read the commentary from Shibuya (WHO Health Evidence and
Statistics head - the second link in my previous post). It
corroborates what I've said.
I'm no conspiracy theorist. What I said was that this was great fodder
for belief in a conspiracy. These figures, when people find out what
they really are, must surely incline them to think conspiracy. They
are so misleading. But we must remember how and why they were
generated.
The Measles Initiative was under pressure to provide some sort of
progress report. They had no deaths data to go on. They couldn't
change the fact that the countries where most measles deaths were
thought to occur didn't have adequate death registration. So they
simply reported what they had done - i.e. they had dispensed millions
of vaccines, and their spreadsheet formula reckoned lots of lives had
been saved.
This was turned into a press release which was very poorly worded
because it gave the misleading impression that ACTUAL measles deaths
had plummeted (even though they used the word 'estimated'). The world
was waiting for good news about the Millenium Goals and had no
hesitation spreading the story that measles deaths had plummeted
because of vaccination. Publications sometimes used the term
'estimated' and other times didn't. Your WHO link of course used it.
It just didn't tell you how they were estimated.
So there you have it. And now YOU are presenting this as evidence that
vaccines save lives, when it was only via that assumption that it was
generated. But as I said in my previous message, I don't blame you for
that because the reports are very misleading.
Greg
JC
countries that had poor records, not all countries. And their numbers
are corroborated by the data I've already presented of individual
countries where better records are kept. So, no Greg, your
conclusions are still left floundering.
Lowering of vaccine rates kills. Real deaths, real suffering, and
real long term consequences.
Get used to it.
John
punter
hopelessly biased and nonsensical data is corroborated by another set
of equally biased and nonsensical data.
Greg Beattie
Actually John, almost all of estimated measles deaths occur in
developing countries and hence ARE estimated in this way. But forget
that, and let's go with what you say. That's great. That means you can
grab the data from those countries that used 'real' deaths and present
it as your evidence. I look forward to it.
Thanks
Greg
JC
Like the figures I gave you about the UK? Let me expand on it for you
Greg.
http://1.usa.gov/uDpFYc
"By 1995 uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination exceeded
90%. The preschool MMR booster dose was introduced in 1996. Increasing
vaccination coverage was mirrored by a fall in notifications from
around half a million cases annually in the 1960s and culminated in
the interruption of endemic measles transmission. In the late 1990s
controversy over the safety of the MMR vaccine contributed to
declining uptake. Coverage with a first dose reached a nadir of 80%
among 2 year olds in England in 2003-4. Accordingly the effective
reproductive number for measles rose from 0.47 (1995-8) to 0.82
(1999-2000), raising the likelihood of outbreaks. The renewed threat
of endemic measles in London, where in some areas as many as 44% of
preschool children and 22% of primary school children were
susceptible, prompted the 2004-5 MMR Capital Catch-up Campaign.
Although vaccination rates in 2 year olds in the United Kingdom have
begun to recover, uptake still falls short of requirements, and recent
years have seen an accumulation of a substantial pool of the
susceptible people required to sustain an outbreak"
and
"Measles has reappeared in the United Kingdom, with 449 confirmed
cases to the end of May 2006 compared with 77 in 2005, and the first
death since 1992"
But even better, http://bit.ly/8xbXCg and http://bit.ly/tQwM4Q
Listed are notifications and deaths. What happened as the vaccination
rate rose? Almost no deaths and 2-3 thousand cases a year. What
happened when the vaccination rate dropped off? "recent years have
seen an accumulation of a substantial pool of the susceptible people
required to sustain an outbreak" and in 2008 cases back up to 5000 and
2 deaths. So that's 2-3 thousand more children suffering Greg, and
many perhaps coming close to death. See how cases rates and deaths
don't correlate in countries with modern medical systems?
So.... vaccination rates came down to 80%, and then what happened?
Cases (you know, pain, suffering, disability) went up, and so did
deaths, but only slightly as the medical care was far better than in,
say, 1940.
Dull, huh? I'm bored with your figures Greg.
John
JC
Let's also look at Switzerland... i think this really tells us a
lot. What do you think? It talks about cases, hospitalisations,
complications and vaccination rates.
"After several years with a relatively low annual incidence rate (0.3
to 1 case per 100,000 inhabitants), there has been a large epidemic of
measles from November 2006 to August 2009. By mid September 2009,
4,415 cases were notified by physicians and laboratories,
corresponding to an incidence rate of 15 per 100,000 in 2007 and 29
per 100,000 in 2008; by far the highest rates in Europe. This
exceptionally long nationwide epidemic comprised three successive
waves, with peaks in August 2007 (171 cases), March 2008 (569 cases)
and March 2009 (417 cases). It mainly affected children aged from five
to 14 years (48% of cases). Most cases were not vaccinated (93%) or
were incompletely vaccinated (5%). In total 656 patients (15%)
suffered complications or were hospitalised. Insufficient, spatially
heterogeneous immunisation coverage (87% for at least one dose at the
age of two years at the national level) has allowed a sequence of
numerous outbreaks to occur, despite the gradual strengthening of
measures to control the disease. Several exportations to Europe (81 in
2007 and 2008) and to the rest of the world (10 for the whole of the
epidemic) have in some instances caused large outbreaks."
How do you explain it, Greg?
John
Greg Beattie
Thanks. I can't believe you linked to UK data showing measles deaths
DECREASED when vaccination decreased. And you think that supports
you... how? Those figures show that since measles vaccination rates
went down, deaths dropped to their LOWEST ever! Remember, you want the
deaths to INCREASE when vacc rates go down, not the other way around.
In addition it shows deaths were declining consistently through all
the years prior to the vaccine being introduced. In short, they offer
ZERO for your case.
The Switzerland data doesn't even mention deaths. I know you're
literally bursting to talk about notifications instead of deaths, and
believe me, I'm looking forward to that. I just want to get this
settled first. Apparently vaccines save lives. I'm asking for the
evidence. It should be abundant. Don't tell me it's all a colossal
assumption? If you can't find the evidence can you at least
acknowledge that? Then we can move on to notifications (preferably on
a different thread for clarity).
I'm gobsmacked. After all this time all you can come up with is
something that shows deaths DECREASE when vaccination decreases. So
far, we've seen that deaths decreased before vaccination, that they
continued to decrease after vaccination, and now we see they continue
decreasing even when we reduce vaccination. Do you read this stuff
before you post it?
Greg
JC
The implication from any statement that vaccines don't save lives is
that they are not effective. Your conclusion is based on several
assumptions once more. Firstly, that in regions where deaths occur
more frequently, such as in developing countries, deaths don't count.
Why? Because the figures are less reliable. I'm not debating this
point with you, but you disregard these deaths as if they mean
nothing. Is that how you feel Greg, that deaths in deveopling nations
doesn't count.
Secondly, you feel like deaths tell the whole story. My reference to
Switzerland is the enormous morbidity that is associated when people
survive these infections. This suffering again doesn't seem to matter
to you. In your world, if someone doesn't die, they don't count.
Thirdly, the table and graphs from the UK clearly show that
notifications decreased when the vaccines were introduced, and I can
hear you shouting "conspiracy" from here.
Fourthly, I've already shown how deaths are a poor measure of
effectiveness in developed countries, as medical care has improved so
much over time. See point three.
Fifth, take a look at this:
http://bit.ly/rTe16V
"During the 12 years of the mostly 1-dose US varicella vaccination
program, the annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the
underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in
1990–1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005–2007."
I guess they do save lives anyway.
John
Greg Beattie
> Greg,
>
> The implication from any statement that vaccines don't save lives is
> that they are not effective.
John, you've inverted the claim. It's not "vaccines DON'T save lives"
but "vaccines save lives?". I'm not trying to demonstrate that they
DON'T save lives. I'm asking you to demonstrate that they DO. There
there appears to be little, if any, decent evidence supporting it.
Hence, I believe the statement is not evidence-based, but a huge
assumption.
> Your conclusion is based on several
> assumptions once more. Firstly, that in regions where deaths occur
> more frequently, such as in developing countries, deaths don't count.
> Why? Because the figures are less reliable. I'm not debating this
> point with you, but you disregard these deaths as if they mean
> nothing. Is that how you feel Greg, that deaths in deveopling nations
> doesn't count.
Once again, that's a ridiculous argument. Of course deaths in
developing countries mean just as much as those in other countries.
You want us to believe that measles vaccine has almost wiped out
deaths in poorer countries. But you have no evidence for that. You
produced some made-up figures. (Note: I'm not saying "the figures are
less reliable"... I'm saying there are NO figures to back up that
story.... except totally fabricated estimates based on the assumption
you are trying to back up).
I say the empirical evidence we do have suggests vaccines have done
little or nothing to save lives in developing countries. Take a look
at this graph:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter2/Fig7_AfricaMortRates.png
This is Africa, where the Measles Initiative has focussed it's effort.
The two thick horizontal lines are the infant mortality rate (blue)
and the child mortality rate (under-5) in Africa from 1960 onward.
They are plotted from survey data - the only valid death data
available. We see a steady decline all the way. The finer lines that
commence around 1980 and shoot up to fairly high levels for the 1990s
represent all the vaccines we showered them with. Now.... where is the
effect of these vaccines on deaths?
Just think about this John. If raising measles vaccine alone from 72%
to 85% could make measles deaths plummet 78%, what might we expect to
see from the 7 vaccines in this graph when they were raised from
nearly nothing to 50-80%? I'd say we should expect to see something
miraculous. But what do we see?
For anyone interested in reading more about this so-called data John
presented, please read Chapter 2 from my book. It's all about this
nonsense.
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/chapters/Chapter2.pdf
> Secondly, you feel like deaths tell the whole story. My reference to
> Switzerland is the enormous morbidity that is associated when people
> survive these infections. This suffering again doesn't seem to matter
> to you. In your world, if someone doesn't die, they don't count.
Of course they count. But here we're discussing whether vaccines save
lives. You DO know this, but constantly try to switch the course of
the discussion to notifications. This is you're way of obfuscating.
Start a new thread for notifications please. Actually, Meryl already
has.
> Thirdly, the table and graphs from the UK clearly show that
> notifications decreased when the vaccines were introduced, and I can
> hear you shouting "conspiracy" from here.
Yes, and they clearly show deaths decreased before, after, and even
when vaccination rates went down. Notifications are a poor substitute
for credible data.
> Fourthly, I've already shown how deaths are a poor measure of
> effectiveness in developed countries, as medical care has improved so
> much over time. See point three.
>
> Fifth, take a look at this:http://bit.ly/rTe16V
> "During the 12 years of the mostly 1-dose US varicella vaccination
> program, the annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the
> underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in
> 1990–1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005–2007."
>
> I guess they do save lives anyway.
Thanks. You seem to have located something to support the statement.
On the other hand it's not significant evidence in my personal
opinion. Chicken pox is not something I've researched but for a start,
I believe those who die from it would be few and far between. Most
would be suffering from other problems and no doubt die from pneumonia
or encephalitis etc. Also, the change in mortality was small (i.e. a
change from 0.41 to 0.05 per million).
Secondly, there was an increase immediately prior to introducing the
vaccine. The death rate declined during the 1980s down to 0.2 in 1986
(prior to the vaccine) and had it followed the same trend would have
most likely been at the level it ended up being after the vaccine. But
for some reason it increased just prior to the vaccine. This can be
confirmed here:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/182/2/383/F2.expansion.html
In the USA population (just over 300 million) a rate of 0.2 equates to
around 60 deaths over all age groups. The rate of 0.4 when it
increased is obviously double that. After the increase it settled down
to 0.05 in 2005-7 (around 15 deaths). Thirdly, if this decline (88%)
were attributable to vaccination why didn't we see it with other
illnesses when vaccines were introduced for them? Why don't we see
ANYTHING in the graph above for Africa? And lastly, is it reproducible
for chicken pox in other areas? Did the decline occur in Australia?
Does anyone have a decent time-series of chicken pox mortality in
Australia, or the UK or anywhere else? I suppose a long-term mortality
graph might be difficult to obtain given that chicken pox was only
reliably differentiated from smallpox around 100 years ago.
But fair enough... you found something. Is there any more?
Greg
JC
I provided you with a paper that reports in a western community, where
modern medicine will save many lives, that mortality rates have
decreased due to a vaccine. Your comment "On the other hand it's not
significant evidence in my personal opinion" is entirely the matter
with you. it's your opinion which rejects clear evidence, and seeks
out other more obscure evidence. Once again you've presented figures
of mortality from all causes, without acknowledging any data based on
specific diseases. You did this with polio, and probably many more.
No matter what way you put it, and no matter how small the death rate
is, Greg, varicella vaccination saves lives.
John
JC
As the vaccination rates become higher, around 1995, the mortality
rates decline faster. Brilliant.
And here's some quotes form their report on childhood pneumonia:
"Pneumonia is the leading killer of children
Pneumonia kills more children than any other illness – more than AIDS,
malaria and measles combined. Nearly 1.5 million children under five
die from the disease each year, accounting for nearly one in five
child deaths globally."
"Preventing children from developing pneumonia is critical to reducing
deaths. Efforts include basic child survival interventions such as
immunizing children (especially with measles, Hib and pneumococcal
conjugate vaccines) and ensuring adequate nutrition, including zinc
intake and breastfeeding. Reducing indoor air pollution and washing
hands with soap also play a role."
Brilliant Greg.
Ignore what you want, Greg, and make assumptions without
justification. Obfuscate the subject matter and then make some
scientific looking graphs. It doesn't change the fact that you're
wrong.
John
JC
http://bit.ly/rTe16V
"During the 12 years of the mostly 1-dose US varicella vaccination
program, the annual average mortality rate for varicella listed as the
underlying cause declined 88%"
Does that sound more like a better headline for you Greg. Real lives,
really saved.
John
Kristen
What about overall mortality rates?
I know an immunization study I read years ago had the same mortality rate between the Tt and Ctrl groups but it was seen as a successful Tt because the children in the Tt group didn't die from the disease they'd been vaccinated against...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
Greg Beattie
On Nov 23, 9:27 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> And thanks for the graph Greg.
>
> As the vaccination rates become higher, around 1995, the mortality
> rates decline faster. Brilliant.
Thank you. You have a great imagination. It's quite evident that if
anything the decline slowed down for the first 15 years after the
vaccines were brought in. After that, the decline returned to its
previous rate. Read the chapter I uploaded for more explanation:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/chapters/Chapter2.pdf
> And here's some quotes form their report on childhood pneumonia:
> "Pneumonia is the leading killer of children
> Pneumonia kills more children than any other illness – more than AIDS,
> malaria and measles combined. Nearly 1.5 million children under five
> die from the disease each year, accounting for nearly one in five
> child deaths globally."
>
> "Preventing children from developing pneumonia is critical to reducing
> deaths. Efforts include basic child survival interventions such as
> immunizing children (especially with measles, Hib and pneumococcal
> conjugate vaccines) and ensuring adequate nutrition, including zinc
> intake and breastfeeding. Reducing indoor air pollution and washing
> hands with soap also play a role."
>
> Brilliant Greg.
Well... thank you again, but somebody else wrote that - not me. What's
your point?
> Ignore what you want, Greg, and make assumptions without
> justification. Obfuscate the subject matter and then make some
> scientific looking graphs. It doesn't change the fact that you're
> wrong.
I think I have a pretty solid case. Heaps of mortality data showing
millions upon millions of lives saved and vaccines did not appear to
figure at all in the picture. You, on the other hand, found ONE paper
claiming chicken pox deaths have reduced in USA from a high of 0.41
per million to 0.05 per million since the vaccine. Actually, what's a
chicken pox death? These people died of pneumonia, encephalitis and
the like. If varicella-zoster (VZ) virus was found in lab tests, and
someone declared it to be the cause, then the death became part of
this data. Since the vaccine came into use, the frequency of finding
VZ virus and it being declared to be the cause, has reduced by that
amount. That's a different thing to actual deaths, as Kristen pointed
out.
If the germ theory is rock solid then this paper has small but real
value. In other words, if we can assume that the mere presence of VZ
virus implies it was the cause of the death, then we can throw this
paper in as evidence. Then again, we all know correlation doesn't
equal causation, don't we? So the paper doesn't say all that much. In
short, deaths where varicella-zoster virus was found and declared to
be the cause dropped from around 100 per year to about 15. There's
your headline.
As I said, you've found something but let's keep it in context. I know
you're excited because apart from this you've found nothing, so you
really want it to stick. But I hope you're still looking. Tell me when
you're finished please.
Thanks
Greg
On Nov 25, 11:08 am, Kristen <violincudd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about overall mortality rates?
> I know an immunization study I read years ago had the same mortality rate
> between the Tt and Ctrl groups but it was seen as a successful Tt because
> the children in the Tt group didn't die from the disease they'd been
> vaccinated against...
JC
Why don't you did it and supply a reference so we can examine it
ourselves?
John
JC
85 lives saved a year. By a vaccine. Well done.
John
punter
like polio, measles etc when the vaccine is introduced doctors often
stop looking for these diseases - particularly in the vaccinated -
which is what happened here. Now I know that JC will be incredulous
about this so I will allow him his indignation before I post the proof
that doctors are encouraged to do exactly this. So the paper is
worthless.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg Beattie
to find VZ virus and declare it to be the cause of death. But is that
because we're less likely to test for it or blame it?
Punter reckons so, and I'd say it makes sense. What do you think,
John?
Greg
JC
John?
I think it sounds like bullshit. Like a fantasy. Like a dream. Gee,
almost like a conspiracy. Bullshit.
John
JC
>
> Thank you. You have a great imagination. It's quite evident that if
> anything the decline slowed down for the first 15 years after the
> vaccines were brought in. After that, the decline returned to its
> previous rate. Read the chapter I uploaded for more explanation:http://vaccinationdilemma.com/chapters/Chapter2.pdf
>
The data points are every ten years, so any claim of 15 years is
false. Secondly, the rate falls after a goof majority of people were
vaccinated. Your claims are... how do I put it... false?
JC
pox were encephalopathic, it would be a dimwit who didn't check for
varicella, even if they were vaccinated. Vaccine failures, especially
for a single shot vaccine, are recognised.
Fortunately, most doctors aren't dimwits. Maybe that's why Greg and
punter think it makes sense.
John
Greg Beattie
Incorrect my friend. The mortality plot points are 5-yearly until 2005
and yearly after that. The vaccine coverage rates are yearly for
diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and measles and 10-yearly for polio,
BCG and tetanus toxoid.
Therefore the increased decline in mortality that you think you see
from 1995 was first registered in the year 2000 data point, almost 20
years after the vaccines started arriving en masse. The slowing down
of the decline (which I mentioned) was actually registered in the 1990
and 1995 data points.... therefore covering the period from
1985-1995... the period when the vaccines were reasonably well
established.
Either way it's just splitting hairs. The deviation in trend is so
small it's not worth talking about... but if you insist on talking
about it, it goes AGAINST your argument. The slope of decline post
2000 resembles that prior to 1980. The only apparent effect of the
vaccines is that when they first arrived the decline in child
mortality slowed for about 10 years. I wouldn't draw this conclusion
however because the deviation is so small, the figures are estimates,
and there would probably be other reasons for it.
The point of the graph (which you appear to have missed) is that there
is nothing to offer support that vaccines have saved lives in Africa.
Here we have the only mortality data available, and it shows a steady
decline which significantly predates the vaccine onslaught, and
appears to be unrelated even after.
Let's take your chicken pox example. If the vaccine can reduce deaths
by 88% within a decade, and most of that in the first few years, why
couldn't seven vaccines make deaths plummet in Africa?
Greg
Greg Beattie
Greg
JC
JC
Do you think that might have something to do with all the other
confounders - all the other things that kill people in Africa Greg.
Like all your other worthless graphs, you obfuscate your results in
order to see things that aren't there. All cars aren't Holdens Greg.
It's kinda getting boring. No one can draw your conclusions like you
can.
John
JC
Do you ever try actually asking any other people, like immunologists,
about your concepts? Do they look at you kinda funny? You tell me
you've asked some - which ones?
John
punter
"Laboratory definitive evidence
1. Isolation of varicella-zoster virus from a skin or lesion swab. If
the case received varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to
the onset of rash the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type
strain.
OR
2. Detection of varicella-zoster virus from a skin or lesion swab by
nucleic acid testing from a skin or lesion swab. If the case received
varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to the onset of rash
the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type strain.
OR
3. Detection of varicella-zoster virus antigen from a skin or lesion
swab by direct fluorescent antibody from a skin or lesion swab. If the
case received varicella vaccine between five and 42 days prior to the
onset of rash the virus must be confirmed to be a wild type strain.
OR
4. Detection of varicella-zoster virus-specific IgM in an unvaccinated
person."
Isn't that interesting? The lab tests are interpreted differently
depending on whether the patient has been vaccinated or not.
Further:
“Note: Laboratory confirmation should be strongly encouraged for
vaccinated cases. If positive, samples should be referred for
identification as a vaccine or wild type strain.”
So the diagnostic criteria is strengthened for the vaccinated (doctors
are "strongly encouraged" not to make diagnoses by symptoms alone) and
lab technicians are encouraged to treat the samples of vaccinated
patients differently to those of unvaccinated patients.
Because of my ignorance and quintessential village idiocy I'm very
confused by all this. The government tells doctors - dimwitted or
otherwise - to treat vaccinated patients differently (in terms of
diagnosis) to unvaccinated ones and yet I know for a fact that doctors
are gods amongst men and get all their diagnoses correct anyway. But I
also know that the government is an authority and could therefore
never be wrong (to say otherwise would make me a conspiracy theorist).
JC, could you please tell me which textbook I need to read to get my
head around all this?
> > John- Hide quoted text -
JC
with all these "Laws" of Hamer floating around.
Try these:
Nairn, R. and Helbert, M. (2007). Immunology for Medical Students (2nd
ed). Philadelphia PA: Mosby Elsevier.
Goering, R., Dockrell, H., Roitt, I., Zucherman, M. and Wakelin, D.
(2008). Mims' Medical Microbiology (4th ed.). London; Philadelphia:
Mosby.
Lee, G. & Bishop, P. (2009). Microbiology and infection control for
health professionals (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson
Education.
Kumar, V., Abbas, A.K., Fausto, N. and Mitchell, R.N. (2007). Robbins'
Basic Pathology (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders.
and
Baum, F. (2008). The New Public Health (3rd ed.). South Melbourne,
Vic.: Oxford University Press.
John
JC
Oops! I forgot - that's a CT artefact.
John
punter
attempts at wit. That is the sort of stuff to get the choir singing
again.
Remember if all you ever do is make unspecific references you can
never be wrong and so while your posts won't look too good to those
with serious doubts at least you can avoid complete humiliation.
Katie Brockie
Also, it is you who is making the case that the germ theory of disease (which 99.99999% of the world's researchers, scientists, doctors, and specialists agree is the cause of most illnesses) is wrong. I think the onus is on you to provide some sort of proof instead of asking millions of questions like "why don't people drop dead when they walk into a doctor's waiting room?"
Show me how, for example, measles is caused - if it's not an infectious virus, what is it?
cheers
K
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
--
ph: 03 4728585
Mob: 021 1881282
Greg Beattie
"Punter - this is a place for respectful debate. remember?"
Why are you directing that comment to Punter? What do you have to say
about John's abuse and name calling, as well as his false accusations
of cyber-bullying?
"Also, it is you who is making the case that the germ theory of
disease (which 99.99999% of the world's researchers, scientists,
doctors, and specialists agree is the cause of most illnesses) is
wrong."
Katie, you asked Kristen on another thread for evidence that doctors
in areas of low vaccine coverage are more on the lookout for illness
such as whooping cough. Now, I'm going to ask you for evidence that
"99.99999% of the world's researchers, scientists, doctors, and
specialists agree [germs are] the cause of most illnesses".
"I think the onus is on you to provide some sort of proof instead of
asking millions of questions like "why don't people drop dead when
they walk into a doctor's waiting room?" Show me how, for example,
measles is caused - if it's not an infectious virus, what is it?"
Punter may wish to answer this question but to suggest the onus is on
him is plainly wrong. We're here to debate vaccination. The germ
theory is it's foundation, so we're scrutinising it. Punter has
pointed out some apparent inconsistencies between the theory and well-
documented observations. They need to be addressed by the theory's
supporters. If the theory is unsound then it's up to us, as a
community, to seek a more sound one. Several efforts have been made in
this direction and Punter has mentioned one of them.
But let's first get past the basics: is the germ theory sound? How
does it address the points raised by Punter (and Bek... and me... and
probably many others)? Those questions are pivotal to many people's
acceptance of vaccines. And finally, can we please move this
discussion back to its proper thread ("Germ theory")?
Thanks
Greg
On Nov 29, 6:27 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Punter - this is a place for respectful debate. remember?
>
> Also, it is you who is making the case that the germ theory of disease
> (which 99.99999% of the world's researchers, scientists, doctors, and
> specialists agree is the cause of most illnesses) is wrong. I think the
> onus is on you to provide some sort of proof instead of asking millions of
> questions like "why don't people drop dead when they walk into a doctor's
> waiting room?"
>
> Show me how, for example, measles is caused - if it's not an infectious
> virus, what is it?
>
> cheers
> K
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Greg Beattie
I'm not drawing conclusions. You are. You are claiming vaccines save
lives. I'm simply showing you that the available data doesn't support
that conclusion.
Greg
punter
know. You certainly don't behave as disgracefully as he does and none
of us think that his behaviour tarnishes you or your beliefs so there
is no need to defend him. By doing so you just make it look as though
you are defending your territory rather than trying to understand our
beliefs and configuring an argument that you think will be persuasive.
And telling me that the majority of doctors believe the germ theory is
completely meaningless. I couldn't care less what most people's
opinions are the only thing that matters is facts and logic. The germ
theory is remarkably devoid of these things. The reason most (all?)
doctors believe in germ theory is because most doctors believe in germ
theory. After all why else would you have made the argument you just
did?
I have given this analogy before and I will use it again: No maths
teacher in the world would ever walk into their class and tell them
that the slope of the function y=x^2 is 2*x because 99.99999 per cent
of maths teachers believe it. Now 99.9999 per cent of maths teachers
do in fact believe it (100 per cent actually) so the premise is true,
but the logic is invalid and the argument is ridiculous. When there is
actual evidence people don't resort to calling people ignorant
conspiracy theorists who need to read textbooks, appeals to authority/
popularity. Nobody ever does that where the theory is robust - the
"experts" run through the arguments persuasively and impassionately.
That doesn't happen with the germ theory/vaccination paradigm because
behind the supreme confidence of doctors there is absolutely nothing
supporting the entire charade.
I find it funny how you want me to state how measles is caused. You do
realise there isn't a virologist anywhere in the world who would be
able to explain why the measles virus causes the rash/fever etc? Many
decades ago they would see kids with symptoms but couldn't find any
linking bacteria on them so they labelled it a 'viral' disease because
they didn't know what it was. When they test for these proteins they
sometimes find it sometimes not and they simply assume that when they
do find it that it must have caused the rash somehow but they don't
have a clue how and they completely ignore the fact that they can find
the same proteins on people with no symptoms. Strangely this rather
germane fact doesn't make them reluctant about getting into a blind
panic whenever they detect one of these proteins. You would think that
if a large proportion of the population had it, symptomatic or not,
even if it were thought to cause the symptoms (say in the presence of
a co-factor) nobody would be foolish enough to describe it as highly
contagious. But there you go.
In the one in a million chance that you are generally curious and not
just looking to laugh at me, most skin conditions (measles/varicella)
are caused by a separation conflict. The measles/pox are the healing
phase. In the conflict phase you may be able to notice rough skin but
most parents won't notice anything until the healing phase. Now your
question will be (if you're clever) if it is part of the healing phase
then how could anybody die from it? The answer is two-fold. Firstly
there are some conditions where the healing phase can be deadly (some
territorial conflicts cause heart attacks). Secondly, whilst these
particular healing phases shouldn't be fatal the treatment of them may
well be, in addition patients may get it into their heads that these
things are more serious than they actually are which can lead to
further conflicts. In short, allopathic medicine is responsible for
practically all deaths due to these conditions.
> Mob: 021 1881282- Hide quoted text -
Katie Brockie
realise there isn't a virologist anywhere in the world who would be
able to explain why the measles virus causes the rash/fever etc? "
cheers
K
Katie Brockie
just looking to laugh at me, most skin conditions (measles/varicella)
are caused by a separation conflict."
thanks
K
JC
The available data is that vaccines prevent the incidence and
mortality of the diseases that they're designed to act upon. That
your rather peculiar data interpretation doesn't support that, based
upon assumptions that are quite invalid, is irrelevant. But I forget
that you believe that symptoms define a disease, so i understand why
you're confused.
John
JC
When you say "Punter has pointed out some apparent inconsistencies
between the theory and well-documented observations." you do realise,
don't you, that he hasn't?
His points are either observations that are entirely consistent with
the accepted mechanisms of infectious diseases and immunology (but not
with his simplistic view of the world) (e.g.: h) very often we see
germs without any illness), or are just personal observations that
prove nothing (e.g.: j) the concept of T-cell memory is ostensibly
unexplainable, no immunologist can come up with any remotely plausible
explanation and most admit they simply don’t know).
He has avoided answering my last point by point retort and has taken
offence to my omitting a [...] and destroying is "perfect example".
Honestly, if that is your thesis on why the "germ theory" is false,
it's pretty darn weak.
John
punter
about German New Medicine. In short disease (more specifically
symptoms), according to the theory, is caused by the sub-conscious
brain's reactions to biologically meaningful "conflicts". The purpose
being that the brain gives us mechanisms to deal with what it believes
(we are talking about the sub-conscious brain here) are necessary to
deal with various problems that we would have encountered on the
savannahs of Africa. These mechanisms are most likely useless to us
now, but evolution takes a long time and our civilisation - as
wonderful as it is (despite the presence of allopathy) - is certainly
not something our sub-conscious minds are equipped to cope with.
For example, a gazelle sees a lion and fears death. It's brain gives
it the capacity to run faster (through increasing lung cells (ie lung
cancer)). Once the threat has passed the gazelle will heal with
tuberculosis. It won't be comfortable but the gazelle survives. Of
course the gazelle has a massive advantage over us. When it is sick it
thinks nothing of it and it doesn't have an army of fools in white
coats telling it that the blood that it is coughing up is a signal
that it will die so it doesn't revert to another conflict. This is
what happens to people. When they get sick say with liver cancer (fear
of starvation) they go to doctors who tell them they have a cancer
that is inoperable. This causes them to have a fear of death (lung
cancer) so the cancer "metastasises". Of course it doesn't do any such
thing. Liver cells can't grow as lung cells. What's happening is that
their misguided belief in the wisdom of their doctor has caused them
to go through another conflict shock.
It should be stressed that whilst in this case (old brain) evolution
(using an anthropomorphism here) is trying to protect the individual
animal through the symptoms, sometimes the symptoms are there
specifically to get rid of the individual in order to protect the herd
(devaluation conflicts such as multiple sclerosis).
This is one of the most extraordinary things about the GNM. As the
brain evolved the things it needed to help the species survive
changed, from protecting the individual to protecting the herd to
protecting the herd's territory. When you actually take the time to
think about it you realise that it is the only theory of disease that
actually fits in with the concept of evolution. The germ theory not
only doesn't fit in with evolution it actually runs contrary to it
where it claims that the rates of mutations are systematically
different for some bacteria/viruses over others.
Now, I realise that 99.99999 per cent of the world's doctors would say
this was all nonsense. But to be honest, if 99.999999 per cent of the
world's doctors were anything like JC I would have thought this was
probably a recommendation.
punter
Ask a virologist to show you how the virus causes the symptoms it
supposedly causes. I posit they won't be able to explain it to you,
much less show it.
JC
fevers, chills, myalgias, etc.
John
JC
I'm impressed. You've really gone all out now displaying to the world
how simple the concepts are that you, Greg and Meryl believe in. It's
outstanding. I don't mean simple and in stupid, but it really is
simple, isn't it? Like, it's easy to understand...
Pity it bears little resemblance to real life, but don't let that
disappoint you. Which "liver" cancer are you talking about punter?
What sort of lung cancer? You're quite right that liver cells can't
grow as lung cells too - they grow as metasteses of the original
tumour, that would resemble the "liver cancer" cells, rather than the
lung tissue. Of course, they're arranged in a haphazard and non-
functioning manner, with abnormal mitoses and neovascularisation, but
don't let that worry you. Your assumptions are false.
And callous "sometimes the symptoms are there specifically to get rid
of the individual in order to protect the herd (devaluation conflicts
such as multiple sclerosis)." So people with MS need to be gotten rid
of?
So, punter, how is it that in your world osteochondromas =
osteomyelitis = fracture callous = Ewing's sarcoma = chondrosarcoma =
osteosarcomas = myositis ossificans = metastases = nonunion = infected
nonunion. They all present with a bony lump, and pain, but behave
clinically very differently? How is it that TB and treponema
palladium both break the Laws of GNM, but this doesn't seem to bother
you?
GNM is stupid. I can't wait to read your defence of it. This is a
debating website after all.
John
Katie Brockie
here is a detailed explanation of how the measles virus causes the rash/fever etc. It does exist.
http://virology-online.com/viruses/MEASLES.htm
I'll just quote part of it:
"A. Properties
"Measles first gains access to the body via the upper respiratory tract or the conjunctiva. The virus quickly spreads to the immediate lymph nodes. Destruction of the lymphoid tissues leads to a profound leucopenia. A primary viraemia ensues which is responsible for spreading the virus throughout the rest of the R-E system and the respiratory system. A secondary viraemia follows whereby the virus is further spread to involve the skin, the viscera, kidney and bladder. The Koplik's spots and the rash in measles are thought to result from a delayed hypersensitivity reaction, the virus antigen being absent from the lesion itself. "Member of the family of Paramyxoviruses
ssRNA enveloped virus, helical symmetry
lacks virion neuraminidase and thus grouped into a separate genus, the morbillivirus
Envelope consists of haemagglutinin protein and the fusion protein embedded in the lipid bilayer
M protein (membrane or matrix protein) lies immediately below the membrane.
ssRNA is encased in a helix of N (nucleocapsid protein). The ssRNA molecule is of negative sense.
The HA protein acts as a means of attachment to susceptible cells.
Measles is an antigenically stable virus. There is one serotype only and there are very little differences between different isolates."
cheers
K
punter
in measles are thought to result from a delayed hypersensitivity
reaction,
the virus antigen being absent from the lesion itself."
What is it with you and JC and your unbridled determination to provide
references that completely destroy your beliefs?
This is the only relevant part of the reference the rest is nothing
more than conjecture and this relevant part demonstrates precisely
what I said, that virologists don't have a clue how the measles virus
causes the spots/rash (which has for centuries been the signifier of
measles).
I do wonder though, if measles causes leucopenia why isn't measles
associated with things like KS and PCP and other AIDS associated
illnesses? Should we be giving measles patients AZT and nevirapine?
Actually I probably shouldn't give you guys any ideas - forget I said
anything. Of course you will say measles is a virus whereas HIV is a
retrovirus, but let's face it, we can call them whatever we want
because every last aspect of this ridiculous paradigm is completely
fabricated isn't it?
On Nov 30, 9:18 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Punter
> here is a detailed explanation of how the measles virus causes the
> rash/fever etc. It does exist.http://virology-online.com/viruses/MEASLES.htm
>
> I'll just quote part of it:
>
> *"A. Properties*
punter
actually make sense to anybody. All good theories should be arbitrary,
incoherent and self-contradictory, but most importantly they should
only be known by a very small clique of people who ensure that any
understanding or knowledge of that theory is provided only to a select
few.
Obfuscation and diversions are critical to all good theories because
it is essential that the plebs aren't allowed any access to it. If
they ask they need to be bombarded with huge amounts of jargon that
make the speaker feel very clever and superior. The plebs need to be
protected from themselves by gatekeepers who behave just like you.
And therein lies your problem JC. Nobody here would think that you are
the sort of person to be trusted or that genuinely cared about the
welfare of any on this site, but all your arguments revolve around us
just bowing down to your superiority and supposed observations and
taking everything you say at your word. I just don't see how you think
we would do such a thing.
punter
cancer cells don't function? My understanding is that they often do.
On Nov 30, 9:05 am, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
JC
The only person that seems to get confused easily is you. And Greg.
You and Greg are the one's who seem to find the "germ theory"
confusing, arbitrary and incoherent. Like I said, if you bothered t
read a textbook you may find your confusion a little less acute. Do
you know all there is to know about particle physics as well, or does
that confuse you as well. I aks this only to see if you have a simple
version of that to offer as well. Making something sound simple, and
then finding faults with it, is neither difficult or surprising.
The air pressure theory of flight:
Planes fly because of the difference in air pressure over it's wings.
You:
But I've seen planes fly in low and high pressure systems - therefore
the air pressure theory of plane flight is wrong!
See what I did there? I dumbed something down, then found a problem
with it, then rejected the dumbed down concept. The concept is
correct - your simple interpretation is not.
Cancer cells rarely function as they intended. Occassionally some
produce hormones, but this is rare. Primary lung tumours don't
respire, bone tumours don't make bone, and lymphomas dont make
functional immune cells. Reference: any good pathology textbook,
like Robbins. Probably chapter 4. Face it punter, GNM and Hamer is
one of the more stupid concepts around.
John
Greg Beattie
This is all getting a bit out of hand. I asked if anyone can supply
the evidence-base for "Vaccines save lives". I supplied a couple of
graphs to start with to illustrate why I doubt the claim.
You responded saying the graphs are useless and don't prove anything,
and suggesting I'm a bit stupid for producing them. Meanwhile, you
didn't come up with any evidence to support your position that
vaccines save lives, except for one paper suggesting that those who
died with varicella-zoster virus recorded as the cause on their death
certificate reduced from about 100 per year in the USA to about 15.
(And Punter documented some competing explanations for that).
Since the start of this thread I've produced quite a few graphs of
mortality trends. If vaccines were as effective as we've been led to
believe, we should have seen significant deviations in these when they
were introduced. But we didn't't. Then again, taken alone, a graph of
say measles mortality is not proof one way or the other: it's only
indicative. One way we can further check is to compare with other
illnesses that we didn't vaccinate against. If measles deviated
significantly and the others didn't we have fairly solid grounds for
thinking the vaccine may have saved lives. If not, we don't.
The graph I posted earlier of measles compared with whooping cough is
one such example. It covered a period when measles vaccine wasn't
around but whooping cough vaccine was introduced. It also covered the
introduction of antibiotics, which came in around the same time as
whooping cough vaccine.
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/other/MeaslesWhoop.png
But there are many others. For example, we can look at 20 years later,
when measles vaccine WAS introduced. This graph shows death rates in
under-5-year-olds at that time:
http:vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter3/
Fig11_Measles50_90under5.gif
One could be excused for thinking that the vaccine may have led to a
drop of around one death per 100,000 children. However, the following
graph shows us that the same trend occurred in all infectious diseases
at the same time, leading to a drop of around 20 deaths per 100,000:
http:vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter3/
Fig12_InfParas50to90under5.gif
I don't put all this 'evidence' forward to make a claim that vaccines
DON'T save lives. I do it to cast doubt on your claim John. Almost
nothing is ever proven in the health sciences. But these graphs (I
have many more) are a strong indication that vaccines did not play a
part in saving lives. What that means for you is you have to find
something even stronger to tip the balance in your favour. So far,
you've come up with one paper, which I must honestly say is worth
nothing in my opinion. But if you think it's worth something then
table it and let people decide how it stacks up against these graphs.
Unless you have something to add... Perhaps you would like to talk
about notifications now? I'm happy to.
Thanks
Greg
punter
What an odd statement. I didn't realise cancer cells had
consciousness. You said they were non-functioning, a point which, if
true, would destroy the GNM theory completely, now you are saying they
don't work as "intended" whatever that means. Oncologists don't look
at cancer through the prism of the GNM so it appears the cells aren't
doing as they should, similarly they say they are in a haphazard
fashion because the theories they use for cancer causation provide no
insight into how these things are organised. Who knows? Maybe if they
looked at them through a GNM fashion they would appear to function
just as they intended and have distributions that make perfect sense.
And this is why all your nonsense about me reading a textbook is just
that. You can't prove the germ theory by assuming it to be true. Every
textbook you have ever read has simply assumed the germ theory was
right. Every explanation they give is predicated on its truth. But no
proof is ever offered because none exists. the whole thing is a
circular argument. Physicists don't generally do that (well maybe
astronomy) they think of experiments that would prove to skeptics
rather than true believers the validity of their theories. In medicine
most of the experiments that are done are nothing more than pharma
companies/doctors etc trying to reinforce their prejudices. Because
most people trust doctors most people don't ask too many questions.
Rest assured that none of the (lay) people I speak to have the
slightest idea how it is that doctors remain symptom free despite
being surrounded by pathogenic germs all the time. They simply assume
that somebody must have the answer. Of course the doctors - such as
yourself - don't know either. All they know how to do is pathetically
and desperately constantly refer the curious to the mystical
textbooks.
I look forward to your next response which will of course be another
variation of me having to read some unspecified textbook.
And by the way I really don't think it is just Greg and me that are
having a hard time following your "explanations".
KB, you are part of the choir. Could you please help us out here?
Which textbook (page reference as well please) will explain how it is
that doctors don't have the lifespan of a fruitfly?
Greg Beattie
section again:
For example, we can look at 20 years later, when measles vaccine WAS
introduced. This graph shows death rates in under-5-year-olds at that
time:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter3/Fig11_Measles50_90under5.gif
One could be excused for thinking that the vaccine may have led to a
drop of around one death per 100,000 children. However, the following
graph shows us that the same trend occurred in all infectious diseases
at the same time, leading to a drop of around 20 deaths per 100,000:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/graphs/Chapter3/Fig12_InfParas50to90under5.gif
Greg
JC
The often do function in a manner, but they function outside of the
control mechanisms that usually exist. Take for example a pituitary
tumour, which may produce acromegaly due to the unregulated release of
growth hormone. A lung tumour, though, will not allow the transfer of
gases across their basal membranes as they are think and necrotic, and
eventually kill a person by asphyxia or brain mets.
John
punter
function but that oncologists don't understand what their functioning
is for. So in other words they observe cancer cells functioning but
because their theory of cancer is nonsense they have no way of
bringing those observations into a coherent theory so they simply say
that it all happens haphazardly and, ultimately, destructively.
Maybe what is needed is a different theory of looking at cancer that
would enable scientists to actually come up with a coherent
explanation for their functioning. Wait! I just had a crazy thought!
Maybe the GNM might be that new theory of looking at cancer that will
give us a coherent explanation for their ostensibly odd functioning.
Katie Brockie
Just dragging this thread back on-topic.
here's the abstract for a review into just this - how many lives are
saved each year by vaccines?
"Demographic impact of vaccination: a review"
Paolo Bonanni
Public Health and Epidemiology Department, University of Florence,
Viale G.B. Morgagni 48, 50134 Florence, Italy
Available online 8 November 1999.
"As to the present, it is estimated that 3 million children are saved
annually by vaccination, but 2 million still die because they are not
immunized. Tetanus, measles and pertussis are the main vaccine-
preventable killers in the first years of life. Data from Bangladesh
show that full implementation of EPI vaccines has the potential of
reducing mortality by almost one half in children aged 1–4 years.
Recent progress in the development of vaccines against agents
responsible for much mortality in the developing countries make it
possible to forecast a further substantial reduction of deaths for
infectious diseases in the next century."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X99003060
Cheers
K
Greg Beattie
Can you explain to us how you found this article relevant? The
abstract you linked to doesn't provide any info. So if you have access
to the whole article, I'd like to know:
What relevant info does it have... for this discussion?
Does it contain any data?
Can you give us the data?
If it is only modelled predictions again, how were they modelled?
Perhaps you could copy/paste some relevant parts from the full
article.
Thanks
Greg
Katie Brockie
I posted an abstract which shows that vaccines save an estimated 3 million children each year.
That is what makes the article relevant. I'll spell it out very clearly. This article illustrates that Vaccines DO save lives, then estimates how many lives per year based on the data from several studies.
Yes it does contain data.
What data would you like? Unfortunately It's difficult to re-create graphs here.
The numbers are based on records kept by The Matlab centre in Pakistan. "In this respect, the Matlab
population centre in Bangladesh (about 190,000 sub-
jects followed in 1985) represents a somehow unique
area in the developing world with regard to accuracy
and size of available demographic data. The
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research
has actually maintained a system of continuous sur-
veillance of vital events in Matlab for a long time."
There have been several studies over the years.
"It was estimated that, starting from the no-vacci-
nation scenario, tetanus elimination could reduce neo-
natal deaths from 68 to 50/1000 live births.
The elimination of measles could reduce deaths of 1-
4 year olds from 90/1000 live births to 50±60/1000 live
births according to the above mentioned case-control
and longitudinal studies.
Although less important, reduction of deaths from
pertussis immunization (less than 2/1000 in the ®rst 4
years of life) was probably underestimated due to the
di culties in the diagnosis of such disease as a cause
of death.
Therefore, immunization against the 3 above dis-
eases had the potential for reducing infant mortality
from 116 to 89/1000 live births (23%) and mortality of
1±4 year olds from 90 to 48/1000 live births (47%)."
from the conclusion:
"As to the present day situation, at current levels of
immunization almost 3 million children are saved
annually by EPI vaccines. There are still 2 million chil-
dren dying because they are not immunized.
EPI vaccines greatly reduce mortality during ages 1±
5 years. Their impact on deaths occurring in the ®rst
months of life is substantially lower.
Progress in the development of new vaccines against
diarrhoeal diseases, acute respiratory infections, ma-
laria and HIV have the potential for substantially
reducing human mortality in the next century.
However, individual interventions, even the most
e cacious like vaccination, may see their e€ect on life
expectancy annulled if not integrated by complex pol-
icies aimed at improving the level of health and the
social, economic and cultural conditions of popu-
lations."
cheers
K
Greg Beattie
scenario, tetanus elimination could reduce neonatal deaths from 68 to
50/1000 live births. The elimination of measles could reduce deaths of
according to the above mentioned case-control and longitudinal
studies."
Katie
Do you notice the words "could reduce" mentioned twice in the above
quote you gave us? He is modelling - forecasting what might happen if
they use vaccines. Somewhere in his model will be an assumption about
vaccines saving lives. In this case, we don't as yet know what that
assumption is but we need to find out... from you, because you have
the paper. Until then it means nothing. In fact, even after then it
may mean nothing, based on what you've shown us. We're looking for
data - not predictions.
Remember the modelled figures JC presented earlier for measles deaths?
They were based on the ASSUMPTION that the vaccine prevents death. As
such they have no value as EVIDENCE that the vaccine prevents death.
They are only useful for forecasting what may happen IF the assumption
is correct. Empirical validation is needed for that assumption if we
are to have any confidence in the model's ability to predict.
At present all we have from this paper is someone saying vaccination
"could result" in lives saved. Do you now understand the reasons for
my questions? You need to know where these predictions came from. If
they are based on empirical data which demonstrates that vaccines
prevent death, then that would be the evidence you are looking for to
present here.
And one last thing: I'm not "complaining" that no-one has shown any
evidence. I'm just noting it, as I'm sure everyone else is.
Thanks
Greg
Katie Brockie
"could result" in lives saved. Do you now understand the reasons for
my questions? You need to know where these predictions came from. If
they are based on empirical data which demonstrates that vaccines
prevent death, then that would be the evidence you are looking for to
present here."
"Data from two distinct areas of Matlab, where a double-blind cholera vaccine trial had been carried out in 1974 and an experimental maternal and child health/family planning programme had been launched in 1977, provided an important opportunity to study the duration of protection against tetanus morbidity and mortality. Death rates of neonates from women receiving 2, 1 or no dose of tetanus toxoid in the precedent 13 years were compared. The results indicated a statistically significant difference (p<0.01) between new-borns to unimmunized mothers versus those who had received 2 doses of tetanus toxoid (death rates were 3.8 higher in the first group in 1982/1983 and 2 times higher in 1986/1987) [14].(M.A. Koenig, N. Chandra Roy, T. McElrath, M. Shahidullah and B. Wojtyniak, Duration of protective immunity conferred by maternal tetanus toxoid immunization: further evidence from Matlab, Bangladesh. American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1998), pp. 903–907.)
With regard to measles, two distinct studies indicated that the above mentioned percentage of 13% deaths attributed to the disease in 1–4 year olds is surely underestimated. A case-control study of 536 deaths and 1072 age–sex matched controls found that vaccination against measles was associated with a 36% lower overall mortality in children aged 10-60 months in the period April 1982 to December 1984. Control for several potential confounding factors did not substantially change the results and confirmed the great importance of measles immunization to reduce mortality, including deaths attributable to diarrhoea [4].(J.D. Clemens, B.F. Stanton, J. Chakraborty, S. Chowdhury, M.R. Rao, M. Ali, S. Zimicki and B. Wojtyniak, Measles vaccination and childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh. Am. J. Epidemiol., 128 (1988), pp. 1330–1339.)
The other study was based on longitudinal data regarding 8135 vaccinated and 8135 randomly matched non-vaccinated subjects living in different blocks of the Matlab area and followed up until 60 months of age.
The effect of measles immunization on the cumulative risk of death for all causes was already clear in the short term, and the risk of death among vaccinated children 42 months after being immunized was still 40% lower than in unvaccinated controls. This indicates that the impact of measles vaccination on mortality was not simply short-term, and that high-risk children who are saved from measles-related death do not subsequently experience higher mortality from other causes, which would otherwise imply a little overall net impact on their survival [15].(M.A. Koenig, M.A. Khan, B. Wojtyniak, J.D. Clemens, J. Chakraborty, V. Fauveau, J.F. Phillips, J. Akbar and U.S. Barua, Impact of measles vaccination on childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 68 (1990), pp. 441–447. )|
This quick overview of distribution and causes of death by age in the first years of life in the Matlab area of Bangladesh allowed a calculation of total preventable deaths by full implementation of vaccinations against the most threatening vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.
It was estimated that, starting from the no-vaccination scenario, tetanus elimination could reduce neonatal deaths from 68 to 50/1000 live births.
The elimination of measles could reduce deaths of 1-4 year olds from 90/1000 live births to 50–60/1000 live births according to the above mentioned case-control and longitudinal studies.
Although less important, reduction of deaths from pertussis immunization (less than 2/1000 in the first 4 years of life) was probably underestimated due to the difficulties in the diagnosis of such disease as a cause of death.
Therefore, immunization against the 3 above diseases had the potential for reducing infant mortality from 116 to 89/1000 live births (23%) and mortality of 1–4 year olds from 90 to 48/1000 live births (47%)."
So there is your evidence.
cheers
K
Greg Beattie
Actually, you didn't give us the evidence. You gave us someone's
conclusions from it. At least this time it included references to the
studies on which those conclusions were based. I've looked them up and
found:
The neonatal tetanus data is freely available from here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508215/pdf/amjph00018-0045.pdf
It's an RCT for cholera vaccine in which the 'placebo' was DT vaccine.
Apparently they did a retrospective analysis of the T in the DT
'placebo' (gulp).
The measles data is from two papers:
A case-control study here (available via subscription only):
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/6/1330.full.pdf+html
And a cohort study here (free):
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1990/Vol68-No4/bulletin_1990_68(4)_441-447.pdf
Thank you for providing this. Well done! I'll have a read and get
back. Can you provide the full text for the missing one? Hopefully
mtp_69_i will be giving us some more to consider. When it all comes in
we can do a comparison.
Thanks
Greg
On Dec 14, 8:10 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, you say:
> "At present all we have from this paper is someone saying vaccination
> "could result" in lives saved. Do you now understand the reasons for
> my questions? You need to know where these predictions came from. If
> they are based on empirical data which demonstrates that vaccines
> prevent death, then that would be the evidence you are looking for to
> present here."
>
> OK - here is some empirical data from the review:
>
> "Data from two distinct areas of Matlab, where a double-blind cholera
> vaccine trial had been carried out in 1974 and an experimental maternal and
> child health/family planning programme had been launched in 1977, provided
> an important opportunity to study the duration of protection against
> tetanus morbidity and mortality. Death rates of neonates from women
> receiving 2, 1 or no dose of tetanus toxoid in the precedent 13 years were
> compared. The results indicated a statistically significant difference
> (*p*<0.01)
> between new-borns to unimmunized mothers versus those who had received 2
> doses of tetanus toxoid (death rates were 3.8 higher in the first group in
> 1982/1983 and 2 times higher in 1986/1987)
> [14]<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X99003060#re...>
> .(M.A. Koenig, N. Chandra Roy, T. McElrath, M. Shahidullah and B.
> Wojtyniak, Duration of protective immunity conferred by maternal tetanus
> toxoid immunization: further evidence from Matlab, Bangladesh. *American
> Journal of Public Health*, * 88 * (1998), pp. 903–907.)
>
> With regard to measles, two distinct studies indicated that the above
> mentioned percentage of 13% deaths attributed to the disease in 1–4 year
> olds is surely underestimated. A case-control study of 536 deaths and 1072
> age–sex matched controls found that vaccination against measles was
> associated with a 36% lower overall mortality in children aged 10-60 months
> in the period April 1982 to December 1984. Control for several potential
> confounding factors did not substantially change the results and confirmed
> the great importance of measles immunization to reduce mortality, including
> deaths attributable to diarrhoea
> [4]<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X99003060#re...>
> .(J.D. Clemens, B.F. Stanton, J. Chakraborty, S. Chowdhury, M.R. Rao, M.
> Ali, S. Zimicki and B. Wojtyniak, Measles vaccination and childhood
> mortality in rural Bangladesh. *Am. J. Epidemiol.*, * 128 * (1988), pp.
> 1330–1339.)
>
> The other study was based on longitudinal data regarding 8135 vaccinated
> and 8135 randomly matched non-vaccinated subjects living in different
> blocks of the Matlab area and followed up until 60 months of age.
>
> The effect of measles immunization on the cumulative risk of death for all
> causes was already clear in the short term, and the risk of death among
> vaccinated children 42 months after being immunized was still 40% lower
> than in unvaccinated controls. This indicates that the impact of measles
> vaccination on mortality was not simply short-term, and that high-risk
> children who are saved from measles-related death do not subsequently
> experience higher mortality from other causes, which would otherwise imply
> a little overall net impact on their survival
> [15]<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X99003060#re...>
> .(M.A. Koenig, M.A. Khan, B. Wojtyniak, J.D. Clemens, J. Chakraborty, V.
> Fauveau, J.F. Phillips, J. Akbar and U.S. Barua, Impact of measles
> vaccination on childhood mortality in rural Bangladesh. *Bulletin of the
> World Health Organization*, * 68 * (1990), pp. 441–447. )|
mtp_69_i
I've included titles to 3 recent papers discussing vaccine efficacy.
I will not enter into a game of providing blow by blow quotes to prove
a point as the papers speak for themselves. There is no (sensible)
debate as to whether vaccination contributes to reducing the incidence
of injury and/or death due to vaccine preventable diseases. Insisting
that vaccination does not work truly shows a level of ignorance,
confusion and misunderstanding on your part and that of your
supporters, that borders on bigotry in the way you argue your case.
Economic evaluations of rotavirus immunization for developing
countries: a review of the literature.
Tu HA, et al. Show all
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2011 Jul;10(7):1037-51.
Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics, Department of
Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Cervical cancer in the human papillomavirus vaccination era.
Tay SK.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Singapore General Hospital,
Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first BCG vaccination against
tuberculosis in school-age children without previous tuberculin test
(BCG-REVAC trial): a cluster-randomised trial.
Pereira SM, et al. Show all
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov 7. [Epub ahead of print]
Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador,
Brazil.
On Dec 14, 9:52 pm, Greg Beattie <pcmedics...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting Katie --"So there is your evidence."
>
> Actually, you didn't give us the evidence. You gave us someone's
> conclusions from it. At least this time it included references to the
> studies on which those conclusions were based. I've looked them up and
> found:
>
> The neonatal tetanus data is freely available from here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508215/pdf/amjph00018-00...
> It's an RCT for cholera vaccine in which the 'placebo' was DT vaccine.
> Apparently they did a retrospective analysis of the T in the DT
> 'placebo' (gulp).
>
> The measles data is from two papers:
> A case-control study here (available via subscription only):http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/6/1330.full.pdf+html
> And a cohort study here (free):http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1990/Vol68-No4/bulletin_1990_68(4)_...
JC
Utter rubbish. " first you said they were non-functioning now you
admit they function but that oncologists don't understand what their
functioning is for." That's not what i said. Sometimes hormonal
tumours produce their hormones (function) but in an uncontrolled
manner. Your question "oncologists don't understand what their
functioning is for" is rubbish, therefore, as the cells are not
functioning "for" anything.
"So in other words they observe cancer cells functioning but because
their theory of cancer is nonsense they have no way of bringing those
observations into a coherent theory so they simply say that it all
happens haphazardly and, ultimately, destructively." Nothing of the
sort. The theory of cancer, as you put it, understands very well
these observations. It's you who does not. Acromegaly, for example,
is very well understood, from it's source to it's clinical
appearance. The theory of cancer is very coherent. Lung cancer
cells, on the other hand, certainly do not function, nor do colorectal
carcinoma's. And yes, when they spread from the bowel to the liver,
they resemble their original tumour type (another aspect of GNM that
is wrong).
"Maybe the GNM might be that new theory of looking at cancer that will
give us a coherent explanation for their ostensibly odd functioning."
Maybe it will punter, but it hasn't yet. And neither have you.
John
Greg Beattie
vaccination contributes to reducing the incidence of injury and/or
death due to vaccine preventable diseases. Insisting that vaccination
does not work truly shows a level of ignorance, confusion and
misunderstanding on your part and that of your supporters, that
borders on bigotry in the way you argue your case."
Hi mtp_69_i
That was a bit of a hostile entry. Thanks for contributing to this
discussion. The reason I asked you to do so was because you said (on
the "Debating science" thread):
"I reckon you'll find, as has been hashed over and over and over
again, that vaccination reduces mortality and increases lifespan."
I don't know whether you had a chance to read the previous posts in
this thread, but I recommend that you do. Rather than insisting
vaccination doesn't save lives, we are offering people such as
yourself an opportunity to demonstrate that it does. You see... I'm
not convinced the statement "vaccines save lives" is evidence-based,
and I'm not alone. Death figures seem to indicate quite clearly that
they have done little or nothing of the sort (please see the various
graphs I've submitted... there are more).
This thread is an opportunity for you to demonstrate that the claim is
indeed sound, despite the backdrop of that data. If the claim isn't
sound, and the picture painted by the death data is closer to the
truth, there are significant implications for public acceptance. After
all, this is the fundamental argument in favour of vaccines, at least
in the public mind.
The statement from you (quoted above) indicated you were in a position
to help, however your three papers suggest otherwise. For example, the
summary from the first paper (http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/
10.1586/erv.11.65 ) appears to have nothing, although perhaps the full-
text article (available via subscription only) has something. If so,
would you mind providing it?
The second paper, available here
http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/publishahead/Cervical_cancer_in_the_human_papillomavirus.99777.aspx
is about trends in cervical cancer. Again, I read the summary as the
full text is available only via subscription. Is it relevant to this
discussion? If so, can you tell us in what way and provide the
relevant bits?
For the third paper, available at
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2970285-7/fulltext?_eventId=login
I started reading it but it was clear that it was an RCT of a BCG
vaccine, and wasn't going to provide what we're looking for. If I'm
wrong about that, again, please copy the relevant bits for us.
This is an important discussion, at least in the minds of consumers. I
suggest you think very carefully before ignoring our concerns with
claims of "ignorance, confusion and misunderstanding". I'm told there
are in excess of 30,000 biomedical journals in existence, each stuffed
with endless reams of carefully constructed papers. I know many of
them deal with vaccines and report impressive conclusions. What we're
after here, however, is quite specific, and your three papers don't
address it. We have a claim - "vaccines save lives" - and we have
comprehensive death data illustrating they don't. We now want the
evidence that addresses this situation.
Thanks
Greg
mtp_69_i
I can't reply any better than JC (first post after your thread
opener).
[Quote: JC]
Greg,
Dull and boring. Been over this. Greg's going back into history
again, looking at mortality figures which are influenced by soooo many
things, like, for example, intensive care. These figures pay no heed
to the incidence - morbidity - of the diseases. Of course, if parents
were only worried about deaths, that would be interesting, but once
again you fail to acknowledge that parents are worried about many more
things, such as will my baby with AFP have a good or a poor
prognosis. That depends on the diagnosis, which is something much
more specific than AFP.
Here you look at deaths, and ignore the people who suffered and
survived diseases, possibly with long term affects. go on - ignore
them Greg. Tis your style after all.
John
//However, just to help you out a little in case you didn't understand
JC...
You symantic argument has been dealt with throughout this thread - and
it is uninteresting, misleading and clearly divisive. It serves no
purpose other than to try and cloud a very clear and obvious
phenomenon: vaccines save lives.
As a matter of courtesy, I responded to your request from another
thread to come over here and provide a few more references to support
the "vaccines save lives" idea. All three of the references I provide
support this idea. As I said, the papers speak for themselves, either
read them, or don't. I have no interest in providing you with free
copies of the papers, that is what libraries are for (or pay the
subscription if you really are so interested in researching how
vaccines save lives). Now, if you are not willing to access these
papers or not able to understand how they show positive outcomes from
vaccines; then I suggest you are probably not someone from whom
information about vaccines should be taken.
But hey, that's just me.
> The second paper, available herehttp://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/publishahead/Cervical_cance...
> is about trends in cervical cancer. Again, I read the summary as the
> full text is available only via subscription. Is it relevant to this
> discussion? If so, can you tell us in what way and provide the
> relevant bits?
>
> For the third paper, available athttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2...
mtp_69_i
about why vaccines save lives, just go here.
http://vaccination.org.au/articles.php?id=4
The experience of the author (Dr. Sue Page) in both clinical medicine
and medical education, here in Australia, is extensive.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Page
> The second paper, available herehttp://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/publishahead/Cervical_cance...
> is about trends in cervical cancer. Again, I read the summary as the
> full text is available only via subscription. Is it relevant to this
> discussion? If so, can you tell us in what way and provide the
> relevant bits?
>
> For the third paper, available athttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2...
Greg Beattie
your thread opener)."
mtp_69_i
Then I suppose I understand why you're reluctant to contribute. Of
course you're correct to say that the papers you provided did "support
the idea" of vaccines saving lives; probably most publications support
the idea. It's just unfortunate they don't illustrate it. I read all
three summaries and it was clear they did not have any material
support for vaccines saving lives. As I've expressed already in this
thread, I'm not here to read paper after paper while someone sits back
and says "it's in there". If you believe you have something of
substance the onus is on you to document it and provide the argument.
Anyway, if you're happier letting this issue swing just the way it is,
that's your business. I can't force you to defend your claims. The
vacuum is quite noticeable though when you all retreat. I believe
those graphs speak a little louder than the collective 'authority' of
all your peers. Addressing them with words such as dull, boring,
uninteresting, misleading, and divisive is a poor substitute for
meaningful acknowledgement.
All the best
Greg
On Dec 16, 12:27 pm, mtp_69_i <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
mtp_69_i
read the papers. David and Margret don't review from the trailers so
why should you? Unless you're just a shoddy, anti-vax pedant, with no
real idea about why they think vaccines are bad and is only looking
for someone to convince them how wrong they are.
Read the link I supplied from Dr Sue Page, if the papers I provided
are too hard for you. She provides a crystal clear explanation of the
benefits of vaccines.
P.