From: Vaccine-man on
PeterB wrote:
> We already know the impact of
> vaccine on mortality has been quite small(1),

Hmm. I just glanced over that paper from the Lancet and I'd like you to
clarify what you mean. The word "vaccine" is not used in the paper, and
immunization is referred to twice, once in context of your statement.
Here's the sentence:

"Whereas some vertical programmes have been successful in meeting their
own goals (eg, child immunisation, and the Onchocerciasis Control
Programme in West Africa) the sum total of so many vertical initiatives
makes little rational sense to the level of implementation."

> 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.

Are you kidding? Smallpox was killing millions of people a year for
centuries until a concerted vaccination program was initiated in the
1960s. The incidence dropped to zero in 13 years. This is essentially a
straight line down on a graph representing these deaths.

> At
> most, vaccines may have impacted 3.5% of the decline in infectious
> diseases, while other factors played a far greater role.

Reference, please? In addition to smallpox, polio is nearly eradicated
(despite recent setbacks) and deaths from measles have declined by half
in the last 6 or 7 years because of vaccination programs.

From: Mark Probert on
johngohde(a)naturalhealthperspective.com wrote:
> 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.
>

John, you are correct, and that is why Rich wrote [sic] after proven.

And, I just thought you would want to know.

From: Vaccine-man on
You have two groups of hamsters. One group is immunized with a
genetically-engineered yellow fever vaccine virus (17D) that has West
Nile virus antigen, while the other is unimmunized. After a few weeks,
all the hamsters are infected with 10^4 TCID50 of WNV NY385-99. Half of
the unvaccinated hamsters die from WN encephalitis, while none of the
vaccinated hamsters show any sign of disease and, of course, none die.
How do you interpret this?

From: marcia on

Vaccine-man wrote:
> > At
> > most, vaccines may have impacted 3.5% of the decline in infectious
> > diseases, while other factors played a far greater role.
>
> Reference, please? In addition to smallpox, polio is nearly eradicated
> (despite recent setbacks) and deaths from measles have declined by half
> in the last 6 or 7 years because of vaccination programs.

I got both mumps and chicken pox as a kid, and so did many of the other
children in my community. My children have never even *heard* of mumps,
because no one they know has ever gotten it. They have heard of chicken
pox, but only because one or two of their friends have gotten mild
cases.

What, other than vaccine, could possibly account for such a dramatic
decline in mumps and chicken pox cases (in the US, at least) during my
lifetime?

From: PeterB on

Rich wrote:
> "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.

Dr. Tom Mack, of USC, a well-known scientist with first-hand experience
studying smallpox in Pakistan during the 1960s, said that endemic
smallpox vanished from the US not because of herd immunity through
vaccine, but as a result of ongoing economic development. He also said
that mortality rates have been skewed by over-weighting of data series
with children, who are more vulnerable to the disease. He pegs the
actual case mortality rate at closer to 1-in-7, saying infection rates
would have declined on their own (just more slowly) without
intervention programs. As for transmission, you can't simply point to
the final aspect of mechanical transfer and say, "There, it was all the
fault of a droplet of spit!" (1) That's absurd. Factors that affect
transmission are a chain of causal events, including social habits,
climate, host immunity, population density, and certainly nutrition.
So yes, any feature of infrastructure is a potentially contributing, or
mitigating, factor.

PeterB

(1) Letai, A. G., Snyder, K. M., Fett, J. D., Worthington, M. G., Ross,
J. J., Neff, J. M., Lane, J. M., Fulginiti, V. A., Milton, D. K.,
Bozzette, S. A., Boer, R., Mack, T., Sepkowitz, K. A. (2003). Smallpox
and Smallpox Vaccination. NEJM 348: 1920-1925