From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 16, 6:14=A0pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> >graphically athttp://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html. Infectious
> >disease mortality declined dramatically prior to availability of most
> >vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and
> >R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in
> >disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
> >measures introduced for the control of these diseases. =A0

==== part 2 of response to Peter Parry ====

> The very valid point Beaglehole and =A0Bonita make of course is that
> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> cost. =A0They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
> were either insignificant or unnecessary...

Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
20th century.

>, you should read the whole book.

Perhaps you should, as only a few portions are devoted to infectious
disease. I feel certain you had never heard of this book until
reading my original citation of it several years ago in the
newsgroup.

> >Whether
> >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
>
> Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
> contrary.

If that was true, you would cite the evidence instead of whining about
the evidence now in front of you.

> Your figure is meaningless.

No, it isn't. The citation provided states that the impact of
measures introduced for the control of infectious disease during most
of the 20th century was, AT MOST, just 3.5%. That means it could have
been .5%, or even less.

> No one questions that massive
> improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> and public health measures.

You are forgetting that food fortification programs in the USA,
Britain, and other countries began much later and greatly reduced
rates of death by measles, incidence of pellagra, rickets, anaemia,
xerophthalmia, goiter, birth defects, low IQ, and other maladies.
Importantly, according to a WHO report, "Subclinical vitamin A
deficiency is also associated with an increased risk of child
mortality, especially from diarrhoea and measles. A meta-analysis
demonstrated that high dose vitamin A supplementation can reduce
mortality from measles by as much as 50%. Another analysis found that
improvement of vitamin A status, whether by supplementation or
fortification, decreased all-cause mortality in children aged between
6 months and 5 years by 23%..." Vaccine cannot begin to approach what
vitamin A, all by itself, can do to save lives.

> No one doubts that in that time the
> effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
> However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically.

Not really. If I'm wrong, what published science are you relying on
to arrive at your opinion?

> For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> makes no difference 100%. =A0With vaccination given pre-exposure and
> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =A0There is no
> other effective treatment.

Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.htm=l

> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. =A0By 1991 it had dropped to
> about 3 cases per 100,000. =A0During that time period there was no
> significant =A0alteration in standards of living or social health.

As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.

> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. =A0By 1998 it was about 5
> per 100,000. =A0In the same time there were no significant social
> changes.

Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.

> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> down to 800 because of vaccination. =A0Since then it has increased again
> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> administering it. =A0I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
> views??

Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
particular has been explained here many times. I suggest you check
the archives.

> >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> >to use of vaccine was profound. =A0In one case, those declines occurred
> >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.
>
> Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?

You are free to cite any published science you feel supports your
alternate view that vaccines are safe and effective. So far, you
haven't done that.

> > If the vast majority of
> >declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
> >were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
> >would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. =A0
>
> It would? =A0The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
> less severe?

Such a macro change would have reduced incidence but not the severity
of case infection. The historical evidence cited shows that severe
illness from exposure to infectious disease declined in the absence of
vaccine and so naturally the decline continued past vaccine
introduction.
From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 6:14�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>>
>> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>>
>> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
>> statements to support it?
>
>I quote the cited text describing the minor impact of vaccine during
>the period noted. If you believe I have made a false statement, what
>specifically are you referring to?

The fact that the book quoted neither supported nor made that
statement.

What was said was :-

"For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases.

On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance...."

Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
the disease) but a public health intervention. The statement that
"3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900
to 1975 could be attributed to measures introduced for the control of
these diseases. �" is wrong and not supported by the reference you
rely upon. Indeed quite the opposite is true as the book says "
targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of
major importance"

>And this proves what I said, that the impact of vaccine during the
>period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%.

Quite the opposite, you have misread the reference. What it said was
"On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance...."

Improvements in the _treatment_ of these diseases in the time
specified had far less impact than the improvements in _prevention_
(including vaccination). Vaccination is part of the 96.5%, not the
3.5%.

>The
>importance of this is that it is the ONLY published measurement of
>vaccine impact on such a meaningful scale found in the medical
>literature. If you have a comparable citation (not just a repository
>of articles), I would love to see it.

As the book states that improvements in public health (including
vaccination) was responsible for 96.5% of the improvement in public
health that seems quite satisfactory and in line with other studies.

>First, "public health campaigns directed at the control of infectious
>disease..." is not confined to the use of vaccine.

Of course not, but you have produced no evidence to say what part it
might have played. The only thing we know for sure is that your
statement that "the impact of vaccine during the
period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%." is
completely fallacious.

>Second, the
>comment does not void the earlier reference to the small impact of
>vaccine during a period which saw massive declines in the severity of
>viral illness.

You have misread the reference. It made no such claim.

>> The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
>> greatly by public health and medical care advances. �For example,
>> smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
>> eradicated, "
>
>Again, this comment refers to a variety of public health advances and
>is not confined to a particular prophylaxis,

Of course not, there was a combination of many measures which
_together_ worked.

>I have previously posted the following quote by Dr. Tom Mack,

> The transcript of Mack's delivery is
>available at "Friends of Freedom International" where it and thousands
>of other such articles of a scientific nature are archived.

That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
search facility.

>> By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
>> mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
>> housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
>> countries. �
>
>That is not a scientifically supported statement,

Merely one supported by history.


From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 22, 2:19 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 6:14 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> >> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> >> statements to support it?
>
> >I quote the cited text describing the minor impact of vaccine during
> >the period noted.  If you believe I have made a false statement, what
> >specifically are you referring to?
>
> The fact that the book quoted neither supported nor made that
> statement.

To anyone with the slightest bit of reading comprehension, that is
exactly what it says.

> What was said was :-
>
> "For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
> major infectious diseases.

And vaccine, while not prevalent during that period, had certainly
been introduced for the major infectious diseases. In fact, vaccine
was THE medical measure introduced **soley** for that purpose. Prima
facie.

> On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> care services, were of major importance...."
>
> Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
> the disease) but a public health intervention....

I might have just called that an implausible stretch, but your
argument is a logical fallacy. If it was not referring to ANY measure
(including vaccine) in place for the intervention of infectious
diseases, then why didn't vaccine contribute something meaningful in
terms of reducing mortality during those 75 years? My point still
stands that the vast majority of improvement in severe infectious
illness occurred without medical measures aimed at those diseases.
Period.

>  The statement that
> "3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900
> to 1975 could be attributed to measures introduced for the control of
> these diseases.  " is wrong and not supported by the reference you
> rely upon.  

Read the entire sentence again. "For example, it has been estimated
that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases." You
may not like what it says, but there it is. Neither vaccines nor any
other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was responsible
for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality during the
period noted. Case closed.

> Indeed quite the opposite is true as the book says "
> targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
> hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of
> major importance"

The opposite of what? A logical argument (not yours) might be to say
the authors believe a 3.5% decline in mortality resulting from use of
vaccine is of "major importance." Characterize that 3.5% (or less)
however you like. Just because the authors believe in the importance
of vaccine in combination with these other approaches does not change
the fact that 96.5% of the total decline in mortality in the USA
during the period noted occurred without medical measures introduced
for the major infectious diseases. If you were not so wed to the
idea that vaccines had a greater impact than they did, you would
understand that.

> >The importance of this is that it is the ONLY published measurement of
> >vaccine impact on such a meaningful scale found in the medical
> >literature.  If you have a comparable citation (not just a repository
> >of articles), I would love to see it.
>
> As the book states that improvements in public health (including
> vaccination) was responsible for 96.5% of the improvement in public
> health that seems quite satisfactory and in line with other studies.

You are reading into the text what you would like for it to say, but
their reference to McKeown in the preceding paragraphs proves you
wrong. Their comment about the 3.5% was made in the context of
McKeown's observation that most medical advances had not yet occurred
when public health was dramatically improving. It's quite impossible
that 96.% of the declines in disease-related mortality occurred
because of vaccine or any other medical measures because they were
largely non existent. Your ambiguous attempt at a paraphrase is quite
misleading, to say the least.

> >First, "public health campaigns directed at the control of infectious
> >disease..." is not confined to the use of vaccine.  
>
> Of course not, but you have produced no evidence to say what part it
> might have played.  

Sure I did. The citation tells us that vaccine contributed something
less than 3.5% to disease-related declines in mortality during most of
the 20th century. Probably less than 1% since vaccine was not the
only medical measure introduced for the infectious diseases.

> The only thing we know for sure is that your
> statement that "the impact of vaccine during the
> period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%." is
> completely fallacious.

The citation is clear that this was the maximum impact of medical
measures introduced for the infectious diseases, of which vaccine was
primary. You can spin and dance and whine about it all day long, but
that's what it says.

> >> The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> >> greatly by public health and medical care advances.  For example,
> >> smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> >> eradicated, "
>
> >Again, this comment refers to a variety of public health advances and
> >is not confined to a particular prophylaxis,
>
> Of course not, there was a combination of many measures which
> _together_ worked.  

But no science quantifying those impacts individually, which explains
Dr. Mack's comment below.

> >I have previously posted the following quote by Dr. Tom Mack,
> > The transcript of Mack's delivery is
> >available at "Friends of Freedom International" where it and thousands
> >of other such articles of a scientific nature are archived.  
>
> That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
> search facility.

FOFI is easily accessible on the web. If you don't like the website,
call Tom yourself (don't bother asking him about me) and he'll confirm
what's there.

> >> By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> >> mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> >> housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> >> countries.  
>
> >That is not a scientifically supported statement,
>
> Merely one supported by history.

Not the part about nutrition, which is still not at optimal levels
even in the developed world.
From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:21:38 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 6:14�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> The very valid point Beaglehole and �Bonita make of course is that
>> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
>> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
>> cost. �They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
>> were either insignificant or unnecessary...
>
>Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
>by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
>the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
>20th century.

As explained in Pt1 - you have misread the book.

>> Your figure is meaningless. �

>No, it isn't. The citation provided states that the impact of
>measures introduced for the control of infectious disease during most
>of the 20th century was, AT MOST, just 3.5%. That means it could have
>been .5%, or even less.

That is not what was said at all. It said that measures introduced
for the control of infectious disease during most of the 20th century
was, AT MOST, just 96.5%. You are hopelessly muddling up the public
health measures, including vaccination, with medical _treatments_ for
disease.

>You are forgetting that food fortification programs in the USA,
>Britain, and other countries began much later and greatly reduced
>rates of death by measles, incidence of pellagra, rickets, anaemia,
>xerophthalmia, goiter, birth defects, low IQ, and other maladies.

Much later than when? They were certainly in place during WW2 but had
little or no effect upon measles or any other infectious diseases.

>Importantly, according to a WHO report, "Subclinical vitamin A
>deficiency is also associated with an increased risk of child
>mortality, especially from diarrhoea and measles. A meta-analysis
>demonstrated that high dose vitamin A supplementation can reduce
>mortality from measles by as much as 50%.

That has been known for a long time and vitamin A as part of the
treatment for measles is common. It doesn't make vitamin A by itself
an effective prophylactic against measles, it isn't.

>Another analysis found that
>improvement of vitamin A status, whether by supplementation or
>fortification, decreased all-cause mortality in children aged between
>6 months and 5 years by 23%..."

Actually it didn't, what it found was that "...improving the vitamin A
status of children aged 6 months to 5 years reduced mortality by about
23% in populations _with at least low prevalence of clinical signs of
vitamin A deficiency_"..."One important finding was that the effect
upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing". In
other words with populations with adequate vitamin A intake from their
diet adding more does no good.

(Vitamin A supplementation and child morbidity and mortality in
developing countries George H. Beaton, Reynaldo Martorell, Kristan A.
Aronson, Barry Edmonston, George McCabe. A. Catharine Ross and Bart
Harvey)

>Vaccine cannot begin to approach what vitamin A, all by itself, can do to save lives.

On the contrary, it can comfortably exceed it. However, it is
irrelevant. This isn't a competition to choose one from many. You
can do several things together. Doing one does not stop you doing
another as well.

>> For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
>> makes no difference 100%. �With vaccination given pre-exposure and
>> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. �There is no
>> other effective treatment.

>Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
>lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
>between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.html

All viruses evolve. There is nothing unique in this respect about
Rabies.

>> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
>> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
>> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. �By 1991 it had dropped to
>> about 3 cases per 100,000. �During that time period there was no
>> significant �alteration in standards of living or social health.

>As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
>let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
>severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
>potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.

The sky might also fall on our heads or John's cosmic leylines might
bite our bum. Both are nearly as likely as it is that an improbable
scenario unsupported by a credible hypothesis or epidemiology is
likely to come about.

>> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
>> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
>> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. �By 1998 it was about 5
>> per 100,000. �In the same time there were no significant social
>> changes.
>
>Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.

It is? Would you care to explain?

>> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
>> down to 800 because of vaccination. �Since then it has increased again
>> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
>> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
>> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
>> administering it. �I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
>> views??
>
>Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
>particular has been explained here many times.

No it hasn't. Some plainly daft theory that every doctor and nurse in
the world dealing with Polio was suddenly affected by one of John's
cosmic mind control experiments and suddenly started calling Polio
something else was propounded. That isn't evidence.

>> > the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
>> >would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. �
>>
>> It would? �The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
>> less severe?

>Such a macro change would have reduced incidence but not the severity
>of case infection. The historical evidence cited shows that severe
>illness from exposure to infectious disease declined in the absence of
>vaccine and so naturally the decline continued past vaccine
>introduction.

Ah, "naturally", must be right then. Actually what happened was that
many diseases spread by water or air were markedly reduced by changes
in housing and living standards. The levels of infection then
stabilised at lower levels than before but they certainly were not
heading towards zero. Smallpox was not eliminated by better
sanitation.
From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 22, 2:19�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original

>> "For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
>> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
>> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
>> major infectious diseases.
>
>And vaccine, while not prevalent during that period, had certainly
>been introduced for the major infectious diseases. In fact, vaccine
>was THE medical measure introduced **soley** for that purpose.

It wasn't. but that is unimportant. In the book you quote to support
your hypothesis it is clear that precisely the opposite to your
interpretation is what was being said.

>> On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
>> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
>> care services, were of major importance...."

>> Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
>> the disease) but a public health intervention....

>I might have just called that an implausible stretch,

You might, to most people I suggest it is pretty clear because it is
explicitly stated:- "On the other hand, targeted public health
Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance...."

>but your argument is a logical fallacy.

It is simply a factual statement that the content of a book you are
trying to claim says one thing plainly says quite another.

> If it was not referring to ANY measure
>(including vaccine) in place for the intervention of infectious
>diseases, then why didn't vaccine contribute something meaningful in
>terms of reducing mortality during those 75 years?

It did, as I have pointed out from 1930 onwards vaccine played a far
greater role as vaccines developed further and the gains from
improvements in social conditions became less significant.

>My point still stands that the vast majority of improvement in severe infectious
>illness occurred without medical measures aimed at those diseases.

Vaccination is a public health measure, not a medical measure.

>> �The statement that
>> "3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900
>> to 1975 could be attributed to measures introduced for the control of
>> these diseases. �" is wrong and not supported by the reference you
>> rely upon. �

>Read the entire sentence again. "For example, it has been estimated
>that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
>United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
>medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases."

I'm afraid I can do nothing about your deficient command of English.
In the book quoted (and the report referenced) "medical measures" are
treatment for the disease "Public health measures" are preventative
measures including vaccination. It is quite clear if you quote fully
rather than selectively.

Here, again, is the bit you keep omitting. "On the other hand,
targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services, were of
major importance...."

>> That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
>> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
>> search facility.
>
>FOFI is easily accessible on the web.

Oh, I found the site, I just can't find anything on it about the
speech you quoted, hence my asking for your assistance as I presume
you know the exact url for the document.

>> Merely one supported by history.
>
>Not the part about nutrition, which is still not at optimal levels
>even in the developed world.

Only if you define "optimal" in some unproven nutricutical way.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Mark Robert Thorson
Next: Religious information