From: Jan Drew on


This thread is not about Peter B Original.

Make a note of it.

Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

<anip>
> On Jan 23, 4:28�pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:

<snip>
From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 23, 4:27 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:34:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >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.

The authors did. To the extent that vaccines had been developed and
utilized between 1900 and 1975, to that extent vaccines must have
played some role (though minor in terms of their impact on mortality),
in overall public health trends. It's true that many vaccines were
not available until after the 1930s, which is why I said earlier that
declines in the severity of infectious diseases (best measured by
declines in mortality) occurred mostly in their absence, however the
period for this citation was 1900 to 1975, so vaccines cannot be
entirely excluded. In fact, their introduction and use makes it
impossible to sequester their impact from the total impact ascribed to
all measures combined, which also includes multi-variates like the
ones McKeown (and I) have said were predominant. The author's view
that various health measures (including vaccine) were of major
importance refers not to the 96.5% of declines in disease-related
mortality already excluded from the impact of "measures introduced for
the major infectious diseases," but to the impact of vaccine (in
combination with other measures) on rates of infection, prognosis, and
overall quality of care. But note that NONE of those individual
measures have an estimated percentage of impact ascribed to them on
the basis of any study or data whatsoever. This is why Beaglehole is
referring to rates of mortality in discussing the 3.5% in relation to
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases on the one hand,
and to overall improvements in public health when discussing the
"major importance" of all measures in aggregate. I don't believe
you'll understand this given your history of bias against a more
realistic view of the accomplishments of vaccine, but this should at
least give you some food for thought.

> >Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
> >text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
> >infectious diseases,"
>
> >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.
>
> We are talking about what is said in the book you are relying upon.

So you didn't realize that Beaglehole himself was citing the McKinlay
study for its finding? That explains all your references to the
1930s, your faulty premises, and non sequiturs. I see now why you've
been so hopelessly lost and resorting to semantics to make your
case.

> >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 .

You aren't sure because you know I proved the absurdity of your
argument with one of the first cites I got my hands on. The plain
wording of the Beaglehole citation does not demonstrate or acknowledge
any such wording convention and does not support your logical
fallacies.

> >> 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...

So you are now changing your comment about the 1930s to the 1980s? I
will bear with you only a little longer, as it is clear you are not
engaging in an honest exchange and resort to never ending non
sequiturs in an effort to discredit what Beaglehole is merely
reporting. I note that you did not respond to my request that you
tell us exactly what you yourself believe is true about the historical
and measurable impact of vaccine on public health. From this point
on, I will boilerplate my response to your most glaring logical errors
and hope readers aren't further confused by these ridiculous word
games you like to play.

> 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.

It's fine that you believe all of that, and some of it is true enough,
but you have no way to substantiate these more narrow time frames
because the effects of various health measures have never been
individually quantified. All we have is a big observational window in
which all these variables were present at once during most of the
twentieth century, which is why even the McKinlay finding (the one you
were unaware of despite it being the premise for Beaglehole's
discussion) was part of a larger discussion about the ideas and work
of McKeown. Yes, the advent of antibiotics made a big difference in
modern healthcare, and yes, vaccines probably have affected rates of
infection to some extent, but we have no way to know how much and the
fact that so many of these diseases were already in retreat (often
long before such measure came into play) is the elephant in your
living room.

> 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.

That's a really bad example of wishful thinking on your part. For
instance, the popularization of vitamin C could be credited with
dramatically improving rates of heart disease during the 1970s, and
the data on vitamin C and heart disease certainly make that possible,
but since I have no way to quantify that without historical study,
it's just a guess and so I leave it unsaid. Same with your comment
above, it's pure conjecture, since I can just as easily claim that
popularization of nutrition beginning in the 1960s is the reason for
improving public health in some area or another.

> >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
> had said.

You are the one teasing exceptions, exclusions, and mythical
conventions out of the text that isn't there. I would suggest you
take a course in reading the scientific literature, and I'm serious
about that.

> >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.
>
> The authors quite plainly say they are.  I am prepared to take their
> word for it.

You have an active imagination.

> >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.
>
> 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%)

This again is based on your false premise that the authors are
segregating the various health measures, when they are in fact
discussing ALL health measures for their *overall* impact to public
health. They might have done as you say if they could have quantified
health measures for their individual contributions to public health,
but that was not the case. Since the 96.5% is (only) referring to
declines in mortality, neither the authors nor the reader are
compelled to "fill up the 96.5%," instead they are commenting on
public health measures in very broad terms, quite clear if you
consider the overall context, for which reference to McKeown is a
key.

> >> 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?

It disproves your silly argument that the term "medical measures" or
"medical intervention" cannot be used in reference to vaccine or is
not equivalent to "medical measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases." The fact that Beaglehole's book and the JAMA
article are 5yrs apart in publication date means nothing unless you
are claiming that some convention in terminology changed during that
time. We both know that didn't happen.

> >> 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) is that "public health
> >measure" does not exclude "measures introduced for the major
> >infectious diseases..."
>
> So vaccination is included in both the 3.5% and 96.5% and you have no
> idea how it influences either?

To one degree or another, vaccines were in play for most of the 75
years discussed in the citation. Consistent with that finding, all we
know based on the information presented is that vaccines were not
responsible for more than 3.5% of the decline in disease-related
mortality between 1900 and 1975. That means 96.5% of those declines
occurred without *any* contribution from measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases at all.

> >> 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.

In referring to the defeat of smallpox in Europe and other nations as
a result of economic development, it is.

> >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."
>
> That is referring to _endemic_ smallpox, you defeat the endemic
> disease and create conditions where it cannot easily return.  

Note that "herd immunity," a reference to inoculation, is not credited
with doing that.

> That
> does not mean the conditions eliminated it and that is not what he
> said.

Did he not say that "economic development," rather than "universal
vaccination," had been responsible for the disappearance of smallpox?
A simple Yes or No will do.

> >> 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...

He did, when referring to the disappearance of smallpox, he said it
didn't happen because of universal vaccination. It's the last 5 words
of the cited quote.

> >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
> developed countries.

I knew you would sooner or later get around to why you are really
here. Thank you for showing your true colors by attacking natural
medicine, at least you admit you are here to defend the profits of the
vaccine makers. Well, here's a shocker. I agree with you that pills
are not the final answer, but the fact remains that supplemental
nutrition (also cited in the WHO data) can be used to save lives and
improve public health. And there is no reason NOT to provide such
natural aid in light of the remarkable benefits that can be derived
from them. I would be perfectly agreeable to some multi-party
consortium launching its own manufacturing facility in order to carry
this out so that any profits could be fed back into public health.


From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 22, 4:48 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:21:38 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(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.

As you did not realize the McKinlay study was the source of the
Beaglehole citation, you are once again overestimating your own grasp
of the material. And because everything below is just a rehash of
everything above and below in earlier exchanges, I am clipping the
remainder of this post for the sake of brevity and to preserve some
semblance of the purpose of the thread in discussing the material
cited. I am adding a few of my latest responses to your many logical
fallacies because I don't see any point in repeating what has already
been said. Some of your comments are included.

====================+++++++++======================

To the extent that vaccines had been developed and utilized between
1900 and 1975, to that extent vaccines must have played some role
(though minor in terms of their impact on mortality), in overall
public health trends. It's true that many vaccines were not available
until after the 1930s, which is why I said earlier that declines in
the severity of infectious diseases (best measured by declines in
mortality) occurred mostly in their absence, however the period for
this citation was 1900 to 1975, so vaccines cannot be entirely
excluded. In fact, their introduction and use makes it impossible to
sequester their impact from the total impact ascribed to all measures
combined, which also includes multi-variates like the ones McKeown
(and I) have said were predominant. The author's view that various
health measures (including vaccine) were of major importance refers
not to the 96.5% of declines in disease-related mortality already
excluded from the impact of "measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases," but to the impact of vaccine (in combination
with other measures) on rates of infection, prognosis, and overall
quality of care. But note that NONE of those individual
measures have an estimated percentage of impact ascribed to them on
the basis of any study or data whatsoever. This is why Beaglehole is
referring to rates of mortality in discussing the 3.5% in relation to
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases on the one hand,
and to overall improvements in public health when discussing the
"major importance" of all measures in aggregate. I don't believe
you'll understand this given your history of bias against a more
realistic view of the accomplishments of vaccine, but this should at
least give you some food for thought.

> 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.

It's fine that you believe all of that, and some of it is true enough,
but you have no way to substantiate these more narrow time frames
because the effects of various health measures have never been
individually quantified. All we have is a big observational window in
which all these variables were present at once during most of the
twentieth century, which is why even the McKinlay finding (the one you
were unaware of despite it being the premise for Beaglehole's
discussion) was part of a larger discussion about the ideas and work
of McKeown. Yes, the advent of antibiotics made a big difference in
modern healthcare, and yes, vaccines probably have affected rates of
infection to some extent, but we have no way to know how much and the
fact that so many of these diseases were already in retreat (often
long before such measure came into play) is the elephant in your
living room.

> 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.

That's a really bad example of wishful thinking on your part. For
instance, the popularization of vitamin C could be credited with
dramatically improving rates of heart disease during the 1970s, and
the data on vitamin C and heart disease certainly make that possible,
but since I have no way to quantify that without historical study,
it's just a guess and so I leave it unsaid. Same with your comment
above, it's pure conjecture, since I can just as easily claim that
popularization of nutrition beginning in the 1960s is the reason for
improving public health in some area or another.

Your comments are based on this false premise that the authors are
segregating the various health measures, when they are in fact
discussing ALL health measures for their *overall* impact to public
health. They might have done as you say if they could have quantified
health measures for their individual contributions to public health,
but that was not the case. Since the 96.5% is (only) referring to
declines in mortality, neither the authors nor the reader are
compelled to "fill up the 96.5%," instead they are commenting on
public health measures in very broad terms, addressing not only
mortality rates but also the issue of morbidity, quite clear if you
consider the overall context, for which reference to McKeown is key.
From: mainframetech on
On Jan 17, 8:37 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <4480ba32-d76d-4d94-bb07-3c1e29a74...(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Jan
>
>
>
>
>
> Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, 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?
>
> > > >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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > What they wrote was -
>
> > > "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> > > rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. =EF=BF=BDMcKeow=
> > n
> > > proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> > > eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> > > sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> > > [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> > > the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> > > was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> > > Europe and other western countries. 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....
>
> > > The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
> > > parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> > > gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> > > improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> > > as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> > > infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> > > of major importance.
>
> > > The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> > > greatly by public health and medical care advances. =EF=BF=BDFor example,
> > > smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> > > eradicated, "
>
> > > In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
> > > many deaths, particularly in infants. =EF=BF=BDPoor nutrition, squalid
> > > conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. =EF=BF=BDIn 1=
> > 831
> > > 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> > > 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). =EF=BF=BDin 1840 5=
> > 0,000
> > > succumbed to measles and whooping cough. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that prio=
> > r to
> > > the start of the second world war social and public health
> > > improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> > > the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> > > far greater impact than any other measure.
>
> > > 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. =EF=BF=BDIn the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the bes=
> > t fed
> > > populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
> > > and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
> > > significantly by social or public health measures. =EF=BF=BDThe major dec=
> > line
> > > in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
> > > health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
> > > such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.
>
> > > The very valid point Beaglehole and =EF=BF=BDBonita make of course is tha=
> > t
> > > 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. =EF=BF=BDThey do not, and never have, proposed that medical improve=
> > ments
> > > were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
> > > book.
>
> > > >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.
>
> > > Your figure is meaningless. =EF=BF=BDNo one questions that massive
> > > improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> > > and public health measures. =EF=BF=BDNo 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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> > > makes no difference 100%. =EF=BF=BDWith vaccination given pre-exposure an=
> > d
> > > immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =EF=BF=BDThere is=
> >  no
> > > other effective treatment.
>
> > > 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. =EF=BF=BDBy 1991 it had droppe=
> > d to
> > > about 3 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDDuring that time period there was no
> > > significant =EF=BF=BDalteration in standards of living or social health.
>
> > > 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. =EF=BF=BDBy 1998 it was about=
> >  5
> > > per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDIn the same time there were no significant social
> > > changes.
>
> > > Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> > > down to 800 because of vaccination. =EF=BF=BDSince 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. =EF=BF=BDI wonder if any read Whale to get support for =
> > their
> > > views??
>
> > > >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> > > >to use of vaccine was profound. =EF=BF=BDIn one case, those declines occ=
> > urred
> > > >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?
>
> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > It would? =EF=BF=BDThe control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies b=
> > ecame
> > > less severe?
>
> > > >And that is exactly what happened. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > No it didn't
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of polio
> had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have to
> be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of the
> enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the other
> hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
> jason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I can certainly agree that a polio vaccine was a great thing.
However, the point we're at now is that the drug companies are hungry
for ever more income, and vaccines produce it for them. It has caused
their greed to go wild by inventing vaccines for every little thing
they can. Soon we can expect a vaccine for flaky dandruff, and you
can be sure that politicians will be given huge donations to their
campaigns to make the vaccine mandatory, as has been tried recently.
And who was behind changing the parameters used by WHO to describe
what a 'pandemic' is? That change made 'Swine Flu' a pandemic and
gave politicians reason to buy vaccine and push it on everyone.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115719

Now that the virus has been shown to have harmed less people than
the seasonal flu, I'm sure we'll be seeing politicians and others
backpedalling to explain the huge outlay of money to the drug
companies for an unnecessary vaccine that may also cause harm. Here's
a link to a CBS story where they found that the CDC lied to make it
look like more people were hurt by the flu than actually had been:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

And here's a link mentioning that Harvard looked into it and found
that the Swine Flu effects had been overblown:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/swine-flu-blown-proportion/story?id=9270149&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

It's easy enough to figure out who might have been behind such
shenanigans, just follow the money. Who profits mightily?

Good Luck,
Chris




From: mainframetech on
On Jan 17, 10:01 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 8:37 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <4480ba32-d76d-4d94-bb07-3c1e29a74...(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Jan
>
> > Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, 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?
>
> > > > >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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > > What they wrote was -
>
> > > > "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> > > > rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. =EF=BF=BDMcKeow=
> > > n
> > > > proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> > > > eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> > > > sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> > > > [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> > > > the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> > > > was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> > > > Europe and other western countries. 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....
>
> > > > The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
> > > > parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> > > > gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> > > > improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> > > > as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> > > > infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> > > > of major importance.
>
> > > > The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> > > > greatly by public health and medical care advances. =EF=BF=BDFor example,
> > > > smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> > > > eradicated, "
>
> > > > In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
> > > > many deaths, particularly in infants. =EF=BF=BDPoor nutrition, squalid
> > > > conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. =EF=BF=BDIn 1=
> > > 831
> > > > 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> > > > 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). =EF=BF=BDin 1840 5=
> > > 0,000
> > > > succumbed to measles and whooping cough. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that prio=
> > > r to
> > > > the start of the second world war social and public health
> > > > improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> > > > the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> > > > far greater impact than any other measure.
>
> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BDIn the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the bes=
> > > t fed
> > > > populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
> > > > and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
> > > > significantly by social or public health measures. =EF=BF=BDThe major dec=
> > > line
> > > > in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
> > > > health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
> > > > such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.
>
> > > > The very valid point Beaglehole and =EF=BF=BDBonita make of course is tha=
> > > t
> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BDThey do not, and never have, proposed that medical improve=
> > > ments
> > > > were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
> > > > book.
>
> > > > >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.
>
> > > > Your figure is meaningless. =EF=BF=BDNo one questions that massive
> > > > improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> > > > and public health measures. =EF=BF=BDNo 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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > > For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> > > > makes no difference 100%. =EF=BF=BDWith vaccination given pre-exposure an=
> > > d
> > > > immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =EF=BF=BDThere is=
> > >  no
> > > > other effective treatment.
>
> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BDBy 1991 it had droppe=
> > > d to
> > > > about 3 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDDuring that time period there was no
> > > > significant =EF=BF=BDalteration in standards of living or social health.
>
> > > > 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. =EF=BF=BDBy 1998 it was about=
> > >  5
> > > > per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDIn the same time there were no significant social
> > > > changes.
>
> > > > Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> > > > down to 800 because of vaccination. =EF=BF=BDSince 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. =EF=BF=BDI wonder if any read Whale to get support for =
> > > their
> > > > views??
>
> > > > >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> > > > >to use of vaccine was profound. =EF=BF=BDIn one case, those declines occ=
> > > urred
> > > > >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?
>
> > > > > 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. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > > It would? =EF=BF=BDThe control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies b=
> > > ecame
> > > > less severe?
>
> > > > >And that is exactly what happened. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > > No it didn't
>
> > > Prove it.
>
> > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of polio
> > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have to
> > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of the
> > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the other
> > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> past.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mark Probert,

Interesting post. Would you be saying that the drug companies are
using the same formula they used back when the vaccine was giving
Guillaine-Barrre Syndrome (GBS) to people and ruining some lives as
well? Just think of the money they saved by doing that, and think of
the numbers of people that are going to be damaged ths time with the
greater numbers being vaccinated.

That might explain the news article in the UK that 600 neurologists
received letters from the government that they should be on the
lookout for GSB among those vaccinated. It made quite stir when folks
found out about it. Here's the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206807/Swine-flu-jab-link-killer-nerve-disease-Leaked-letter-reveals-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html

Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks with
their vaccine. Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the American
people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
move. Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.

Good Luck,
Chris
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