From: Peter B on

"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec2f5489-4ebc-48b9-9f4e-054bbc34ba63(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
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
>
> 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.
=================================================
Typical of you, he asked quite pleasantly for your help, or the link you
used.

You refused and furthermore injected your overinflated ego into it and
were worried lest he ask the author of the site about you. <snorf>

He waxed you in this thread and your pitiful attempts at obfuscation
failed miserably.


From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 22, 5:08 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(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.  

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. If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?

> >> 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...."

The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"
and refers to vaccine, quarantine, or any other medical protocol. As
evidence, see the JAMA article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795
and its use of the term "medical intervention" when discussing
vaccine. As for your view that something less than a 3.5% decline in
mortality resulting from use of vaccine is of "major importance," that
is purely a characterization and you are welcome to it. For your
comment to have any particular meaning, you will need to cite evidence
quantifying the individual contributions of these various health
measures, and how they have impacted rates of morbidity and mortality
historically. There is no such data presented in the cited text or it
would have been noted in my original discussion. The fact remains
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, whether you feel that was of "major
importance" or not.

> >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.

You have cited nothing contradicting the facts presented. You express
the view that a 3.5% impact to death rates was of "major importance,"
then suggest that a greater impact to public health must have
followed. Your claims are not substantiated by any data presented in
the text cited by me and you have not cited any published science of
your own. It appears you have no argument.

> > 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.

Pure conjecture without evidence to support your thesis.

> >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.  

I'm sure you woujld agree that the term "medical measure" and "medical
intervention" are interchangeable? You will find that term used in a
discussion of vaccine in the JAMA article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795.
And again, what "medical measures" do you suppose the authors are
referring to in their comment about the 3.5% decline in rates of
mortality?

> >>  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.

I quote them directly because it makes it clear you have no argument.
You can spin and dance and whine all you won't, or throw an insult,
that won't change the fact you have no evidence quantifying the
individual impact of vaccine.

> 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.

No, that's just your imagination working hard to find an argument. I
doubt you will do so, but please state for us exactly what, in a
hundred words or less, you believe **IS** true about vaccine. Pretend
you are doing a presentation for a group of skeptics and you need to
persuade them of the virtues of vaccine. Give us maybe 4 or 5 bullet
points. Can you do it?

> 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...."

It's perfectly fine to cite a portion of text characterizing the
importance of public health measures in aggregate, but that is hardly
information. The evidence that 96.5% of the decline in disease-
related mortality from 1900 to 1975 occurred without medical measures
(which includes vaccine) introduced for the major infectious diseases,
is quite remarkable. It means that NON-medical measures were of much
greater importance to the decline in the severity of these deadly
diseases over a period of many decades. This is why, in the same
chapter, the authors are also discussing McKeown.

> >> 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.

Go to http://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org. The search box is
on the right. Type the word "smallpox" into the box. Look for the
article dated Jan 2, 2003. It's about half way down the page.

> >> 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.

You obviously don't research these important issues. Visit WHO on the
web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
part of the world. Let me know if you need help finding the search
box.

From: Peter Parry on
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:20 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 22, 5:08�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original

>You may not like what it says, but there it is.

Indeed it is, and I do like it.

>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.

As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
were of major importance". Note the inclusion of "public health
Interventions including vaccination"

No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's (in affluent
countries) the greatest gains in overall health of the population were
obtained through improvements in sanitation, diet and housing. That
does not mean that other gains were either insignificant nor
unnecessary. Post the 1930's in the western world the balance of gain
moved away from housing, sanitation and diet as advantages to be
gained from them had largely been achieved. Now of course in the USA
in particular a new problem, of too much food rather than too little,
is again becoming a public health concern.

> If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
>vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
>declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?

In that book vaccination is clearly not included in "medical measures"
but explained separately in the next sentence where it is included in
public health measures. The medical measures which had a small impact
on disease up until the early 1900's were the rudimentary treatments
for the diseases.

>> 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...."

>The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
>term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"

Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
your authority. In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
health measure and states so - "targeted public health Interventions
including vaccination...".

>The fact remains
>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, whether you feel that was of "major
>importance" or not.

You keep missing out that vaccination is quite explicitly included in
the 96.5% of effective measures. That medical _treatment_ for
infectious illness prior to the early 1900's was largely ineffective
is not in question. The introduction of antibiotics was the single
greatest medical advance in the treatment of these illnesses and that
wasn't due for a few decades more.

>> It is simply a factual statement that the content of a book you are
>> trying to claim says one thing plainly says quite another.
>
>You have cited nothing contradicting the facts presented.

You haven't presented any facts, only a plain misunderstanding of what
the book you rely on said.

>You express the view that a 3.5% impact to death rates was of "major importance,"

I expressed no such view. What I have repeatedly said, and what you
seem unwilling to understand, is that in the book you are relying
upon, and by selection bias misquoting, it quite plainly includes
vaccination in the group of public health activities which achieved
the greatest gains. You are wrongly attributing it to the smaller
group.

" 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...."

It is obvious that in this book vaccination has been included in
"targeted public health Interventions", not in "medical interventions"

>> >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." �

Try reading the next sentence with it:-

" 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...."

Which bit of "On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions
including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child
health care services, were of major importance" are you having trouble
understanding?

>occurred without medical measures (which includes vaccine)

It didn't say that, it clearly and unambiguously states quite the
opposite that it includes vaccination in "public health" measures.
That other books and other authorities in other places do differently
is irrelevant. In the book you are quoting to support your case it
specifically includes vaccination as a public health measure rather
than a medical intervention.

> It means that NON-medical measures were of much
>greater importance to the decline in the severity of these deadly
>diseases over a period of many decades.

Of course they were. In the 70 years after the Second Industrial
Revolution there were huge improvements in sanitation, diet and living
conditions and these had a major impact on disease. No one denies
that.

>> 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.
>
>Go to http://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org. The search box is
>on the right. Type the word "smallpox" into the box. Look for the
>article dated Jan 2, 2003. It's about half way down the page.

Thank you for that assistance.

The document quoted appears to be a partial extract from a speech
discussing the possible responses to a smallpox outbreak in the USA
caused deliberately. He is making the point (that I suspect few
would dispute) that it would be imprudent to try to vaccinate the
whole population of the USA against the possibility of such an attack
as with modern living standards and no vectors the chances of rapid
spread of the disease were it introduced are very small.

A more effective solution would be to wait until an outbreak
occurred, treat those affected and bring in vaccinated staff to treat
people at home rather than gather them together in hospitals.
"Availability of protected personnel to me is vastly important, ...
And I would suggest that older and foreign MD's who were previously
vaccinated ought to be given priority. "

"Vaccinating those expected to implement control, those known exposed
to a case or an exposed person, those not so exposed but at risk of
work place exposure, and members of the community at large. With
respect to the first, I think this is very essential that there be
designated individuals who are vaccinated in advance,..Now I was asked
to speak about post-exposure vaccination a few minutes ago. There's
not much to say about it. I can give you the little bit of data that I
have. It isn't very good data. I expect that post-exposure vaccination
does make a difference. I don't know exactly, on a day-specific basis,
how that difference changes. I would certainly want to be vaccinated
myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives. "

It is all perfectly sound stuff. If the risk is containable you don't
vaccinate 300million people with the consequence that some will die of
vaccination when the risk of catching the disease to most is
negligible. Of those that do catch it, some will indubitably die but
hopefully less than would from vaccinating the whole country which
would expect to lead to about 300 deaths (smallpox vaccination is the
most dangerous immunisation of recent times).

He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
conducive to it. He rightly says that in dealing with such a
terrorist incident vaccination, especially of a large proportion of
the population, is a side issue when compared with the major one of
health surveillance for early detection of an outbreak.

Quite what relevance you think this has to the role of vaccination in
eradicating Smallpox escapes me as it is simply discussing the
specific consequences of someone deliberately re-introducing it to the
USA. His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."

>You obviously don't research these important issues. Visit WHO on the
>web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
>insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
>part of the world.

You seem to be conflating several issues. That much of the worlds
population is malnourished is obvious. That resolving the reasons for
that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
birth rates is equally obvious. I'm not sure of the relevance to
vaccination though.

From: The One True Zhen Jue on
On Jan 16, 4:11 pm, 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.  Whether
> vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
> The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> to use of vaccine was profound.  In one case, those declines occurred
> without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.  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.  And that
> is exactly what happened.  The purported benefits of vaccine in
> reducing rates of infection and in conferring meaningful resistance to
> disease are based almost completely on pre-existing declines in the
> severity of those very diseases.  This has occurred against a backdrop
> of limited safety data and a history of serious, often fatal, vaccine
> side effects.(1)
>
> It would seem obvious to most that public health policy should fully
> assess the risk of any medical intervention and it's potential for
> unintended consequences, yet this has rarely been the case.  A lack of
> published science on both vaccine effectiveness and safety has left
> considerable doubt as to whether artificial immunization can safely
> inoculate or accomplish real, as opposed to theoretical, disease
> resistance.  Whereas the success of drug development for the treatment
> of various diseases in general has been rather mixed when measuring
> real health outcomes, the history of vaccine development has been
> almost absurdly tragic.(1)  For instance, a string of vaccine failures
> during earlier periods of population wide experimentation (a practice
> that continues to this day) ultimately took the lives of at least two
> hundred thousand people worldwide.  Today, vaccines are regarded as
> relatively safe, but in the absence of proper study demonstrating
> this, ethical scientific conduct should discourage their use.  The
> premise for this argument in modern scientific circles is the
> Precautionary Principle, which states that any intervention (medical
> or otherwise) must be proven safe by those advocating its use.
> Remarkably, the vaccine makers have managed to acquire waivers of
> liability protecting them from legal recourse if and when the public
> is harmed by vaccines.  In the absence of valid safety data, such an
> arrangement is immoral.
>
> It is interesting to note that rates of infection, unlike measles
> mortality, were never reliably assessed and were, in fact,
> dramatically under reported to health agencies.  According to Alfred
> S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections of
> Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a factor
> of ten.  So say the authors, "...prior to introduction of measles
> vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the United
> States every year, but 4 million children were born and essentially
> all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that could only have
> been acquired as the result of infection.  Thus, the mean true number
> of cases per year was about 4 million."  So, the infection rate was
> ten times higher than was generally reported, meaning the true
> mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is commonly
> believed.  It can be argued that vaccine research is based almost
> entirely on theoretical science in the form of antibody titres,
> community surveys and historical fallacies.  Whereas artificial
> immunization may inoculate a narrow band of phenotypes, it is not
> equivalent to immunity and works unpredictably.  In the absence of
> meaningful safety data, therefore, vaccine remains outside the
> boundaries of "evidence based medicine."
>
> Note that, among 30 countries with childhood vaccination programs, the
> one with the highest mortality rate for children under 5yrs of age is
> the country with the largest number of childhood vaccines.  That
> country is the USA.  Not surprisingly, childhood mortality rates in
> countries with the LEAST number of vaccines in their early
> immunization schedules are those with the LOWEST childhood mortality
> rates.
>
> [ref.http://www.generationrescue.org/documents/SPECIAL%20REPORT%20AUTISM%2...]
>
> (1) "Smallpox Vaccine: Does it Work?" published by Holistic Pediatric
> Association.
>
> "During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when smallpox
> epidemics ran rampant, the introduction of smallpox vaccination was
> often followed by an increased incidence of the disease. Many vaccine
> critics accused the smallpox vaccine of precipitating these
> epidemics.  A disastrous smallpox epidemic occurred in England during
> the period 1871-1873 at a time when the compulsory smallpox
> vaccination law had resulted in nearly universal coverage. A Royal
> Commission was appointed in 1889 to investigate the history of
> vaccination in the United Kingdom. Evidence mounted that smallpox
> epidemics increased dramatically after 1854, the year the compulsory
> vaccination law went into effect. In the London epidemic of 1857-1859,
> there were more than 14,000 deaths; in the 1863-1865 outbreak 20,000
> deaths; and from 1871 to 1873 all of Europe was swept by the worst
> smallpox epidemic in recorded history. In England and Wales alone,
> 45,000 people died of smallpox at a time when, according to official
> estimates, 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated.
>
> "When Japan started compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1872
> the disease steadily increased each year. In 1892 more than 165,000
> cases occurred with 30,000 deaths in a completely vaccinated
> population. During the same time period Australia had no compulsory
> vaccination laws, and only three deaths occurred from smallpox over a
> 15-year period.
>
> "Germany adopted a compulsory vaccination law in 1834, and rigorously
> enforced re-vaccinations. Yet during the period 1871-1872 there were
> 125,000 deaths from smallpox. In Berlin itself 17,000 cases of
> smallpox occurred among the vaccinated population, of whom 2,240 were
> under ten years of age, and of these vaccinated children 736 died.
>
> "In the Philippines, global public health measures were instituted
> when the United States began its occupation to establish a self-
> reliant government in the early 1900s. The incidence of smallpox
> steadily declined and the compulsory vaccine campaign was credited
> with this dramatic reduction. However, in the years 1917 to 1919, the
> Philippines experienced the worst epidemic of smallpox in the
> country's history with over 160,000 cases and over 70,000 deaths in a
> completely vaccinated population. Over 43,000 deaths from smallpox
> occurred in 1919 alone. The entire population of the Philippines at
> the time was only 11 million.
>
> "Vaccine failures of this magnitude may have several causes. The
> vaccine used could have been defective. During that period it was
> difficult to verify what the vaccine actually contained. The vaccine
> could have been contaminated with smallpox virus and actually caused
> epidemics. Or vaccine critics may have been correct in asserting that
> Jenner's cowpox vaccine, which is essentially the same vaccine used
> today, simply did not work to prevent smallpox."
>
> Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association

According to the 2008 report on toxicology you cited as proof of the
safety of diet supplements, there were ZERO deaths from vaccines that
year. Check out page 140 and let me us know how it feels to realize
that vaccination is as safe as supplementation; at least according to
your source.

athttp://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf.

From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 23, 8:31 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:20 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 5:08 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> >You  may not like what it says, but there it is.  
>
> Indeed it is, and I do like it.
>
> >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.
>
> As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
> quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
> personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
> were of major importance".  Note the inclusion of "public health
> Interventions including vaccination"

No one said otherwise. Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
infectious diseases," a most ridiculous (and easily disproved) claim.
For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
deployed. Second, the term "medical measure" is not a proper term, as
you falsely claim, and the JAMA article cited by me -- using the term
"medical intervention" in a discussion of vaccine -- proves it. Thus,
the term "public health intervention" does not exclude "medical
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases...," nor do the
authors in the cited text suggest anything of the sort.

> No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's...

I've been meaning to point out the logical fallacy of your reference
to the 1930s, as the McKinlay study does not end during that decade,
but continues to 1975, by which time most major modern vaccines were
already developed and in use. Nothing you say based on this false
premise has ANY relevance whatsoever to either this citation or my
discussion. Bottom line, vaccines did not save untold millions of
lives during the 20th century, and nothing your argue to the contrary
proves otherwise.

> > If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
> >vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
> >declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?

> The medical measures which had a small impact
> on disease up until the early 1900's were the rudimentary  treatments
> for the diseases.

First, we are not talking about "up until the early 1900's," but to
the period 1900 to 1975. You repeatedly lose focus on the text of the
citation being discussed. Second, your reference to "rudimentary
treatments" and the author's reference to "medical measures introduced
for the major infectious diseases" clearly shows how desperate you are
to cling to your belief that vaccines are excluded from part of their
discussion. If your objective is to simply say that vaccines were of
major importance to public health, I am fine with you believing that,
I am even fine with Beaglehole believing that. I would never have
cited their work at all if the point had not been made that 96.5% of
the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 had nothing
to do with vaccine or any other measure introduced for the infectious
diseases.

> >> 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...."
>
> >The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
> >term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"
>
> Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
> your authority.  

Nonsense. I have already proved the fallacy of your claim using a
JAMA citation, which you conveniently ignored and snipped.

> In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
> health measure and states so -  "targeted public health Interventions
> including vaccination...".  

Logical fallacy. I did not dispute that vaccine is a "public health
measure," what I disputed (and disproved) if that "public health
measure" does not exclude "measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases..."

> >The fact remains
> >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, whether you feel that was of "major
> >importance" or not.
>
> You keep missing out that vaccination is quite explicitly included in
> the 96.5% of effective measures.

No, it isn't, and your false premise for that baseless claim has been
disproved.

> That medical _treatment_ for
> infectious illness prior to the early 1900's was largely ineffective
> is not in question.  

No one has said anything at all about the pre-1900's other than you.
I suggest you read the book before continuing to comment on my
discussion of it.

> The introduction of antibiotics was the single
> greatest medical advance in the treatment of these illnesses  and that
> wasn't due for a few decades more.

See above.

> >Go tohttp://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org.  The search box is
> >on the right.  Type the word "smallpox" into the box.  Look for the
> >article dated Jan 2, 2003.  It's about half way down the page.
>
> Thank you for that assistance.  

.......

> He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
> would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
> consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
> conducive to it.

His reference to the historical defeat of smallpox (which you snipped)
does not depend on the various methods of disease importation
addressed by him. Restoring what he said: "...If people are worried
about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because
of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic
development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other
countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were
several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal
vaccination."

> Quite what relevance you think this has to the role of vaccination in
> eradicating Smallpox escapes me...

His statement that it didn't, or did you forget to read that part
before you deleted it?

> His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
> to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."

I never said he doesn't believe that vaccine can afford some measure
of protection, I said he doesn't believe that vaccine was responsible
for eradicating smallpox. His statement quoted above is proof of
that.

> >You obviously don't research these important issues.  Visit WHO on the
> >web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
> >insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
> >part of the world.
>
> You seem to be conflating several issues.  That much of the worlds
> population is malnourished is obvious.  That resolving the reasons for
> that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
> birth rates is equally obvious.  I'm not sure of the relevance to
> vaccination though.

Too bad you don't get it. Vitamin A insufficiency alone increases the
mortality risk of infection by measles and malaria. Vaccine cannot
compensate for that because antibody production is just one layer of
immune response.
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