From: PeterB - Original on 23 Jan 2010 16:20
On Jan 23, 12:45 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
> 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
According to VAERS, the official vaccine event reporting agency,
"Underreporting is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance
systems, including VAERS. The term "underreporting" refers to the fact
that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual
adverse events." Since vaccines are usually given in a healthcare
facility, reports of such incidents will be filed by a healthcare
professional to VAERS, rather than a local poison control center.
AAPCC (also a passive reporting agency) tells me that they would
catalog such reports (if received at all) generically as a drug or
pharmaceutical event, so using them as a resource for vaccine events
makes no sense.
> 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.
As I've pointed out before, the value of AAPCC data is to see the
relative differences between the prevalence of "at home" exposures,
specifically for medications and supplements, since both are as likely
to be reported by consumers. Unfortunately, based on my original
interview of AAPCC, the bias inherent in their methodology means that
the number of events attributed to supplements are undeservedly
amplified while at the same time the number of events that are
medication related are undeservedly reduced. Thus, the absolute
values reported to AAPCC for these two categories of exposure are not
likely to be particularly accurate.
From: Peter Parry on 23 Jan 2010 16:27
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:34:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>On Jan 23, 8:31�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> >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.
So are you now claiming the book included vaccination in both the 3.5%
and the 96.5%? Quaint.
>Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
>text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
As it is explicitly included in the public health measures accounting
for 96.5% it is either excluded from the other or, for some
inexplicable reason, included there as well. What is plain is that
your assertion that vaccination is only in the 3.5% is quite obviously
wrong as the book you are relying on says differently.
>For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
>same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
We are talking about what is said in the book you are relying upon.
>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.
I'm not at all sure what the relevance of another article, at a
different time in a different publication is to the quite plain
wording you are fallaciously relying upon .
>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.
So things appear twice?
>> 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.
Your fallacy is to assume linear interpretation. During the period
from the mid 1880's to the 1980's the greatest growth in health was
initially from public health measures as I have explained. In the
latter part it wasn't as the gains to be obtained had largely been
achieved. It isn't difficult. Are you after the truth or do you want
to cherry pick only dates which support your misconceptions?
>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
To those with minds closed and welded shut I'm afraid you are right.
>> 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.
Don't be silly all the time. During the period from 1900 to 1975
there were two distinct phases. In the early 1900's public health
measures still had the greatest impact. From 1930/40 onwards the
returns from them diminished as living standards grew. At the same
time the growth in antibiotics and vaccination meant that from 1930
onwards medical advances started to predominate. So from 1900 to 1930
public health measures had a significant impact and medical treatments
far less so. From 1950 to 1980 public health measures had a
negligible impact as there were (in the west) few gains to be made but
medicine made significant advances. The balance shifted.
>You repeatedly lose focus on the text of the citation being discussed.
It is important to understand what it says and not what you wish it
>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
The authors quite plainly say they are. I am prepared to take their
word for it.
>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
Quite plainly that isn't what they said. No matter how you squirm you
cannot fit -
" 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...."
into your misinterpretation. (Unless you also want to put "targeted
public health Interventions, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services" into your 3.5% which doesn't
leave a lot to fill the 96.5%)
>> 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.
What has a JAMA article years later got to do with the plain and
simple statements in the book?
>> 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
So vaccination is included in both the 3.5% and 96.5% and you have no
idea how it influences either?
>> 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)
He made no such reference.
>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
That is referring to _endemic_ smallpox, you defeat the endemic
disease and create conditions where it cannot easily return. That
does not mean the conditions eliminated it and that is not what he
>> 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.
He did not say that as in many nations where it was eradicated the
changes in living conditions which occurred in the west had not (and
mostly still have not) taken place.
>His statement quoted above is proof of that.
It is nothing of the sort.
>> 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.
Hence the importance of improving agriculture, increasing living
standards and reducing birth rates. As the research you misquoted
earlier found "One important finding was that the effect
upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing".
Produce good living standards and a sound diet and you have a major
impact on illness. Giving people with an adequate diet vitamin D
pills does nothing other than inflate the coffers of the multi-million
dollar nutricutical companies. It is better to establish a good and
sustainable diet than it is to offload vitamin pills onto under
From: The One True Zhen Jue on 23 Jan 2010 16:28
On Jan 23, 4:20 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 12:45 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
> > On Jan 16, 4:11 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
> likely to be particularly accurate.> http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf
The quesiton is very simple. You accept the report's finding that
there were zero deaths from dietary supplements. Do you also accept
the finding that there were also zero deaths from vaccines?
Obviously, you don't. You can't accept a world where that is true,
much less be internally consistent regarding your view of the cited
In other words, your policy toward this report is the same as
everything else. You agree with it when it agrees with you;
otherwise, it's part of some pro-pharma spin-machine.
Now, for those interested in the facts, how 'bout that stat regarding
zero vaccine deaths in 2008? Why isn't John mentioning that and why
is it making Peterb babble insanely?
From: Mark Probert on 23 Jan 2010 18:50
On Jan 23, 4:28 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
> On Jan 23, 4:20 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 12:45 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 4:11 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
> > likely to be particularly accurate.>http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf
> The quesiton is very simple. You accept the report's finding that
> there were zero deaths from dietary supplements. Do you also accept
> the finding that there were also zero deaths from vaccines?
> Obviously, you don't. You can't accept a world where that is true,
> much less be internally consistent regarding your view of the cited
> report's validity.
> In other words, your policy toward this report is the same as
> everything else. You agree with it when it agrees with you;
> otherwise, it's part of some pro-pharma spin-machine.
> Now, for those interested in the facts, how 'bout that stat regarding
> zero vaccine deaths in 2008? Why isn't John mentioning that and why
> is it making Peterb babble insanely?
PeterB does not need any stimulation to babble. He does it every time
his fingers hit the keyboard.
From: Jan Drew on 23 Jan 2010 20:05
On Jan 23, 4:20ï¿½am, Martin <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
Martin Rady atheist posted:
Vulgarity and an insult.
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:20 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
On Jan 22, 5:08 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> 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
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"
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
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,"
is purely a characterization and you are welcome to it. For your
comment to have any particular meaning, you will need to cite
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
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
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
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
> >> 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.
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
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
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
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
web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature
insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
part of the world. Let me know if you need help finding the search
> <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
> >> <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 ï¿½may not like what it says, but there it is. ï¿½Neither 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. ï¿½If 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"