Re: Opinions on Echinacea


David Wright wrote:
> In article <1124479499.964075.273950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <1124375206.595195.116450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >David Wright wrote:
> >> >> In article <1123853914.560881.10690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >David Wright wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <1123700043.135376.270390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> >> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >cathyb wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As Petey must know, what I actually posted was:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "People are intuitively very bad at risk assessment Jan--they waste
> >> >> >> >> money on lottery tickets, where the chances of winning are
> >millions to
> >> >> >> >> one, instead of keeping money in a bank where they are guaranteed a
> >> >> >> >> (small) rate of return. And they take the relatively high
> >risk of their
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> kids dying or being impaired by diseases, because they are frightened
> >> >> >> >> of the much, much smaller risk of vaccine damage.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >What's your evidence that a "relatively high risk of kids dying or
> >> >> >> >being impaired by diseases" follows not being vaccinated? And how do
> >> >> >> >you know the risk of vaccine damage is "much, much smaller?" The world
> >> >> >> >is waiting for you to enlighten us.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If we work from something like VAERS data to get our risk estimates
> >> >> >> for vaccines, and we use ordinary mortality/morbidity statistics for
> >> >> >> diseases, are you suggesting that the case for not vaccinating is
> >> >> >> stronger? Have you even bothered to check?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Taking measles as an example, someone pointed out the other day that
> >> >> >> in the US, measles mortality per year was in the hundreds; claimed MMR
> >> >> >> mortality per year in VAERS is under a dozen. How's that for
> >> >> >> starters?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The problem is that VAERS doesn't adjust for the rate of attrition. We
> >> >> >don't know how many of these deaths represent children who were
> >> >> >vaccinated but contracted measles and died anyway. If both occured, it
> >> >> >isn't ethical to attribute mortality to measles alone when immunization
> >> >> >(sic) was concomitant.
> >> >>
> >> >> But with numbers of these relative magnitudes, it also doesn't matter.
> >> >> Even if all half-dozen or so of the VAERS cases were actually killed
> >> >> by the vaccine, or even if they all caught measles and died solely of
> >> >> that, the *overall* improvement is so great that it makes no
> >> >> difference.
> >> >
> >> >It matters, and for other important reasons. What is the evidence that
> >> >declines in incidence of measles is related to vaccination and not to
> >> >improvements in nutritional status? Established clinical data links
> >> >contraction and severity of measels to deficiency of vitamin A, whereas
> >> >vitamin A was used to dramatically lower mortality from measles prior
> >> >to use of antibiotics.
> >>
> >> And it still is, in places like Africa, where malnutrition is
> >> widespread. However, you're being deliberately obtuse, I think. The
> >> drop in measles cases was enormous and rapid in the wake of
> >> vaccination, and I'm talking within a few years. Are you aware of any
> >> sudden, massive changes in nutrition amongst children in the USA right
> >> around 1966? I'm not.
> >
> >Two points. A pre-vaccination trendline shows measles declining many
> >year prior to introduction of MMR, probably because of improvements in
> >living standards, better nutritional status, introduction of fortified
> >foods, and possibly use of supplements.
>
> It shows nothing of the sort. Measles incidence had been consistent
> for decades before the introduction of vaccination. Measles *deaths*
> had declined.

Right, it was late and I was looking at a composite chart designed to
cull another data point, and misread it. In fact, the infection rate
and the death rate should be discussed separately. So here is the
question. With 90% of reductions in measles death *BEFORE*
vaccination, how do you give the vaccine credit for more than 10 points
of additional reduction in death? At best, vaccine might be
responsible for a tiny fraction of that *continuing* decline: maybe 3%?

> Measles had not; it oscillated around 450,000 cases per
> year. Measles is extremely contagious, one of the most contagious of
> all infectious diseases, in fact, and it wasn't going anywhere. Not
> until vaccination comes in -- and rates plummet within a few years.

Rates of infection dropped, but 90% of the rate of death had already
occured. That can only mean one thing: better access to nutrition and
adequately fortified foods made measles an inconvenience, not a killer.


>
> >The fact that vaccination was concomitant with this trendline doesn't
> >prove your horse came from the back of the pack to win the race.
> >Another reason not to give vaccination more than partial credit for
> >those reductions is to observe the HUGE spikes in measles outbreak
> >well into the vaccination campaign.
>
> > For example, in 1971, incidence of measles advanced 238%, with a 275%
> >increase in deaths compared to 1968. In 1977, there was a 40% increase
> >in incidence of measles, with a 25% spike in deaths, *year over year.*
> >In 1990, measles incidence was 790% greater, and mortalities 3,100%
> >greater, compared to figures a decade earlier (1981-1990.)
> >Consequently, I am not prepared to accept that vaccination is
> >particularly effective for measles, or any other infectious disease.
>
> I never thought you were this dishonest, Peter, but I see I was wrong.
> You're trying to play Stupid Math Tricks, but I'm not going to let you
> get away with it.
>
> Those percentages sound huge, as though you'd really discovered
> something. But you haven't, because you're talking about large
> percentage increases of smaller numbers.

It's why we use percentages, to see the true relationships between
numerical data without distortion. But if you want to throw out the
"problem" years for your theory, go ahead. It doesn't make your case
any stronger.

> Until the introduction of
> measles vaccination, measles incidence hadn't dropped below 150,000
> cases per year from 1920 till 1963. Yet, by 1970, it was down in the
> thousands of cases per year. Yes, in 1989-1991, there was a big spike
> in measles cases: but in 3 years, that was 55,000 cases. So what
> happened? CDC says:

I addressed this line by line in cathyb's post; there is no data here
supporting mass vaccinations, in fact it further highlights the need
for better nutrition in the poor, not more vaccine.


> 1989-1990 Measles Epidemic
> A dramatic increase in measles cases occurred between 1989 and
> 1991. During those three years, 55,622 cases were reported Most of
> the cases occurred in children under 5 years of age, with the number
> of cases among unvaccinated Hispanic and African American
> populations being four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic
> whites. This also marked the first time the number of measles cases
> for children under 5 years of age exceeded those for the 5 to 19
> years old group.
>
> During this period, 123 people died from measles-related illnesses
> -- almost half were under 5 years old. Ninety percent of those who
> lost their lives had not been vaccinated. The 64 deaths in 1990 was
> the largest number that had been seen in almost 20 years.
>
> >> >Also, health studies show measles infection in vaccinated communities
> >> >can occur nearly as often, in some cases more often, than in
> >> >non-vaccinated populations.
> >>
> >> Hogwash. Cite your studies. Measles can still occur in vaccinated
> >> persons, and occasionally does, but usually with reduced severity.
> >
> >US Health dept. data for the the years cited above, which has been in
> >the published literature for years, are ample evidence that vaccination
> >is not the panacea you seem to think. At worst, vaccination may be the
> >*REASON* for upward spikes in infectious disease. I think you are
> >making the data say what you would like to believe.
>
> I think you are making this up as you go along. Take a look at
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/measles/history.htm

The chart I use spans more than 70 years, using data provided to me by
CDC.
Your chart starts immediately prior to the vaccine campaign. You need
a bigger picture.

>
> or
>
> http://www.whale.to/v/measles2.html
>
> Now tell me about how measles didn't decline dramatically in a very
> short period starting just after the introduction of vaccination.

But deaths were already down 90%, and vaccines had nothing to do with
that. We also can't be totally certain, in the absence of virology,
that a lot more measles cases aren't going unreported.

>
> Furthermore, since most people are now vaccinated, but vaccination is
> not 100% effective, it's a virtual certainty that *some* vaccinated
> persons will contract measles if there is an outbreak. But note the
> CDC excerpt above, and that 4-7x more frequent incidence in those who
> were unvaccinated.

see above.

> >> >Any premise that dead virus stimulates an adequate immune response in
> >> >people with already diminished immunity is more about successful
> >> >marketing than virology or cause and effect.
> >>
> >> I figured you'd try to claim some other cause for the enormous drop in
> >> measles, but I also knew you wouldn't be able to come up with a
> >> plausible explanation. I *am* a bit disappointed in you. I'd hoped
> >> you were above such things.

See above.

> You haven't come up with an explanation. You've merely done some
> prodigious dodging and weaving, not to mention the introduction of
> outright falsehoods, to try at any cost to avoid admitting that
> measles vaccination worked.

Hardly. Measles vaccine can't take credit for more than a few
additional points of the additional 10 points in reduction in death
following the pre-vaccine 90% drop in such deaths. Because of the
absence of long-term clinical studies in real patients, we can't know
that vaccine gets ANY of the credit.

> >> >> Unless you can show that measles vaccine is doing something perfectly
> >> >> awful to those receiving it, the efficacy and value of vaccination is
> >> >> a closed question, and vaccination is good.
> >> >
> >> >A glaring non-sequitur. Even if the vaccine is perfectly harmless,
> >> >which it isn't, that doesn't mean it's "efficacy and value" is a
> >> >"closed question" or that "vaccination is good." Saying "gee whiz" is
> >> >perfectly harmless, that doesn't mean saying "gee whiz" is beneficial
> >> >to my health.
> >>
> >> No, but saying "gee whiz" didn't cause measles cases to drop by four
> >> orders of magnitude, either.
> >
> >Another non-sequitur, on top of an absence of supporting data, doesn't
> >make your argument more persuasive.
>
> The graphs at those URLs will, I think, settle the question of whether
> measles incidence dropped the way I say it did.

It settles any question that vaccine gets credit for massive reductions
in death from measles, which it doesn't.

PeterB

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... > and the death rate should be discussed separately. ... With 90% of reductions in measles death *BEFORE* ... > vaccination, how do you give the vaccine credit for more than 10 points ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... deaths are not the only issue. ... >*BEFORE* vaccination, how do you give the vaccine credit for more ... >for better nutrition in the poor, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... But I was always talking about incidence. ... In terms of percentages, complications from measles, including death, ... > my contention that measles vaccination reduces cases of measles. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... it was late and I was looking at a composite chart designed to ... for half a century before vaccination began shows that measles ... deaths are not the only issue. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... But I was always talking about incidence. ... >> evidence for half a century before the vaccine existed. ... The decrease in measles ... Even after vaccination, in the 1989-1991 measles spike, there ...
    (misc.health.alternative)