Re: Opinions on Echinacea

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1124720417.547290.222450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <1124479499.964075.273950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >David Wright wrote:
> >> >> In article <1124375206.595195.116450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> Perhaps. But I was always talking about incidence. You've been
> claiming that vaccines "don't work," which is just perverse in the
> face of the drop in measles cases after the introduction of
> vaccination. Yes, mortality had dropped off well before, but there
> were still hundreds of deaths each year, even with ICUs and the like
> available.

It depends on how you define "works." What I said is we don't have
long-term studies documenting the percentage, or duration, of
immunization. Without that information, I question injection of
biological material into a human being. The data you think proves
vaccine is effective does not adjust for confounding factors clearly in
evidence for half a century before the vaccine existed.

> Besides, deaths are not the only issue. Measles is not a binary
> choice, either you get well 100% or you die. There are other
> sequelae, like permanent brain damage, that anti-vacs like yourself
> are prone to overlook.

In terms of percentages, complications from measles, including death,
was very rare. And those complications can be better relieved, or
prevented, with adequate nutrition. Just because we identify a
pathogen doesn't mean it's best treated with vaccine.

>
> >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%?
>
> I never mentioned deaths at all. You dragged that in. It was always
> my contention that measles vaccination reduces cases of measles. If
> there were no vaccination, we would still be seeing 400,000 cases per
> year of measles and some hundreds of deaths. Now we see virtually no
> deaths.

You've made a leap of faith in associating numbers from a chart with
effectiveness of a medical procedure. Those data don't adjust for a
single confounding factor, and aren't a substitute for good science.
The graphs show a 95% reduction in measles death over a period of fifty
years without vaccine, which means measles severity was mitigated
almost completely through improvements in standard of living. My
concern with the apparent drop in incidence is with accuracy of
treatment records at public health facilities, in that measles might be
misdiagnosed in vaccinated patients simply because of vaccination
status. It's a question that needs to be answered. Also, how many
deaths are measles related and might be reported otherwise?

>
> >> 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.
>
> Still a killer on occasion. And if you don't get the disease, you
> won't die from it.

The question remains, where is the long-term data showing how much
vaccine improves those odds? We just don't know the answer to that.

>
> >> > 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.
>
> Sure it does. You're just playing games, or maybe you're innumerate
> and don't realize how ridiculous your contentions are.

I'm pointing to the data and asking you questions. There is nothing
ridiculous about that. But I think I understand your argument about
percentages. Since the absolute numbers are small, fluctuations are
not meaningful. Is that it? Well, these spikes DID take place and
they happened during the period of vaccination, therefore it seems we
need to explain them. Shrugging it off with "oh well, *** happens, it
was just 50 people" doesn't make your assertion about vaccine ring
true.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Better nutrition would help, but it won't stop people from getting the
> measles, and if they do, some of them will die and some will suffer
> permanent aftereffects.

If that were true, everyone would get measles, and humanity wouldn't be
here. The fact is, natural immunity is supported by nutrient
homeostasis and that is how people avoid getting disease in the first
place. It's also how we manage to survive viral infection when exposed
to such pathogens. Even a cold can kill you if you aren't prepared for
it, right?


> >> 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.
>
> Your vague claim of "US Health dept data" is not evidence. Nobody
> claims vaccination is a panacea -- attributing such claims to those
> in favor of vaccination is a favorite tactic of the anti-vac crowd.

The data I cited is valid and easily cross-referenced at CDC. There
are specific clinical citations in the literature with regard to
individual communities, one in Ohio but others, as well, in which
unusually large outbreaks followed vaccination. Unfortunately, I think
there may have been a trend away from looking at these incidents and
assuming they aren't statistically meaningful.

>
> If you have evidence (relatively recent evidence, that is) that
> vaccination is aggravating infectious disease rates, let's see it.
> And vague claims about the data being out there somewhere don't
> cut it.

I never said I had clinical evidence for vaccines causing infectious
disease, I said spikes in those years cited raise it as a possibility.


>
> >> 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.
>
> The whale.to chart starts in 1920 and backs up my contentions just as
> well. (Actually, it looks as though whale is quoting Quackwatch,
> which is very strange indeed.)

My chart goes back to 1912. As for what is being "backed up," it
depends on what you're looking for. You see medical miracles, I see a
progression in trend that doesn't magically end with vaccination.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Oh, please. If the incidence statistics are inaccurate now, then they
> can't have been any more accurate *before* vaccination was introduced.

I mentioned vaccine bias as a reason for misdiagnosis, which could mean
we have dramatically higher rates of this illness. I suspect we do.


> Particularly in the first few years after the vaccine came in, because
> the doctors were used to seeing measles at that point. Today, they
> might be less ready to identify it, but not then.

Exactly my point. They are less ready to identify it because they
think it "shouldn't be there." A bias based on vaccination status.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Unimpressive in both cases.


In the absence of good science, there is nothing impressive about
vaccine.

> >> 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.
>
> But it can take credit for the reduction in morbidity, just as I've
> been saying it could. And just as you can't refute, no matter how
> much you twist and turn.

The chart you use to associate vaccine with a reduction in morbidity
would be an exhibit in a real study, not the linchpin.

>
> >> >> 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.
>
> And a big "who cares?" to you, bub, since I never said it did.

I care because it proves nutritional status is more important than
vaccination status.

PeterB

.

Quantcast