From: john on

"marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1146681773.893630.113790(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>

> LOL. Interesting article from a historical perspective, but posting the
> link with the claim that it's one of the best documents on smallpox
> vaccination only lowers the credibility of the anti-vaccination squad.
> Or was this a joke?

I think 120 or so years is enough time to prove it didn't work, as they
showed by stats etc, the Phillipine experience in the 20's was proof in
itself http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html
Dr Creighton was one of the leading medical men of his day
http://www.whale.to/v/creighton.html

It is a joke sanitation was the real reason it declined, along with the
decline in poverty.

It is not "best" if you have to believe in vaccination








From: PeterB on

john wrote:
> "marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1146681773.893630.113790(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > LOL. Interesting article from a historical perspective, but posting the
> > link with the claim that it's one of the best documents on smallpox
> > vaccination only lowers the credibility of the anti-vaccination squad.
> > Or was this a joke?
>
> I think 120 or so years is enough time to prove it didn't work, as they
> showed by stats etc, the Phillipine experience in the 20's was proof in
> itself http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html
> Dr Creighton was one of the leading medical men of his day
> http://www.whale.to/v/creighton.html
>
> It is a joke sanitation was the real reason it declined, along with the
> decline in poverty.
>
> It is not "best" if you have to believe in vaccination

Unfortunately, your references to 'whaleto' don't also appear on
Merck's or AMA's websites. The memo states that proper pharma blogging
requires "proof" (you know, ipso facto comments from "reputable"
sources like those) while our resident pharma bloggers refuse to
reference their own sponsors marketing hype (even when it's disguised
as science), for obvious reasons.

PeterB

From: marcia on

john wrote:
>
> It is a joke sanitation was the real reason it declined, along with the
> decline in poverty.

Realizing the futility of this response...

Has it escaped your notice that poverty has *not* universally declined,
nor has sanitation universally improved?

But even if we acknowledge that poverty and santitation has, indeed,
improved in much of the developed world, your arguement still doesn't
hold water because of smallpox mode of transmission. The virus is
spread from one person to another via infected saliva droplets, not
through a contaminated or poorly ventilated environment.

Historically, spread of the virus was slower than other infectious
diseases because smallpox is not contagious until immediately before
the rash appears, so the people most likely to contract it from any
given person were other members of that person's household--perhaps
along with people they shared a drinking cup with (which people in the
sanitized developed world unfortunately still do), and anyone the
infected person might have licked.

Also, large outbreaks of smallpox were uncommon, which also tends to
undermine your argument that its demise was significantly impacted by
environmental manipulation (e.g., improvements in sanitation).

And there, again, it begs the question: If improvements in sanitation
and poverty were the reason for its "decline," why isn't smallpox
running rampant in undeveloped countries where living conditions are
similar to, if not worse than, what they were in the US and Europe
before the 20th-century?

How does your theory address that?

From: johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com on
Rich wrote:
> "john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
> > Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
> > documents on smallpox vaccination.
> >
> > "In conclusion, I have thus shown, I hope, beyond the possibility of
> > dispute, that all the claims made in favour of vaccination are unfounded
> > in fact; that it is a dangerous practice, and that it is a useless
> > practice ; and the sooner the Government of the country dissociates itself
> > absolutely from such a piece of eighteenth century quackery, the better it
> > will be, not only for the health of the nation, but for the progress of
> > true science, and for the honour and dignity of Parliament and the
> > executive authority."
>
> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words.

> Mr. Lupton has been proven [sic] wrong.

Actually, it should be 'proved.'

Just thought that you might want to know.

From: Rich on

"PeterB" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146757591.329989.240820(a)i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>> "john" <scu23(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:VaKdnSEk5_WYB8XZRVnyhQ(a)bt.com...
>> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lupton_b.html
>> > Published by the National Anti-Vaccination Society, and one of the best
>> > documents on smallpox vaccination.
>> >
>> > "In conclusion, I have thus shown, I hope, beyond the possibility of
>> > dispute, that all the claims made in favour of vaccination are
>> > unfounded
>> > in fact; that it is a dangerous practice, and that it is a useless
>> > practice ; and the sooner the Government of the country dissociates
>> > itself
>> > absolutely from such a piece of eighteenth century quackery, the better
>> > it
>> > will be, not only for the health of the nation, but for the progress of
>> > true science, and for the honour and dignity of Parliament and the
>> > executive authority."
>>
>> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has
>> passed
>> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
>> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
>> has been proven wrong.
>
> Your ipso facto is purely associative. Where are your RCTs proving
> that vaccine is both effective and safe? We already know the impact of
> vaccine on mortality has been quite small(1), that response to
> infectious disease falls on a continuum of mild to severe morbidity,
> whereas severe morbidity is linked causally with mortality, and that
> declines were substantial before most vaccines were introduced. At
> most, vaccines may have impacted 3.5% of the decline in infectious
> diseases, while other factors played a far greater role.
>
> (1) McFarlane, S., Racelis, M., Muli-Musiime, F. Public Health in
> Developing Countries. Lancet 2000; 356: 841-6.
>


The eradication of smallpox from the planet was no mere coincidence. It was
the result of a determined effort by some brave men who overcame political,
social, and economic barriers, and, in the end, tracked down every last
outbreak of smallpox and snuffed it by vaccinating all contacts of those
with the disease. Random controls are not necessary to observe the
effectiveness of that effort. Since that last case of wild smallpox in
Somalia in 1977, there has been no more of the deadly scourge. Historically
smallpox has killed more people than all other infectious diseases combined,
and it has not been associated with poor sanitation or poverty. Where the
disease has been endemic, princes and paupers alike have been afflicted.
Now, nobody dies of smallpox, and the disfigured faces of the survivors are
seen only on those old enough to have had the disease in the distant past.
As for your theory of decline of mortality/morbidity, smallpox was deadly to
the end, as evidenced by the fact that in the last outbreak in Europe about
one in four who contracted the disease died, about the same rate of
mortality smallpox has always had, despite the availability of good medical
care.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/