Re: Opinions on Echinacea

In article <1125026903.119864.282430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.

No, I'm afraid you're clutching at straws again. The data that exists
for half a century before vaccination began shows that measles
incidence varied considerably from year to year, but never dropped
below 150,000 cases per annum until vaccination came in, at which
point it took prodigious and unreversed drop. It has never returned
to pre-vaccination levels. If the vaccine were wearing off, we'd be
seeing lots more cases, since measles is still around and is
frequently brought into the country.

All of your supposed "confounding factors" are nothing but obfuscation
on your part. There was no revolution in nutrition circa 1963 that
would explain it. Doctors did not suddenly lose the ability to
diagnose measles over the course of a couple of years. Etc.

>> 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.

Complications from measles can often be treated by nutrition. But you
keep overlooking that those treatments are not 100% effective. Some
people who get measles are going to die, and we can't prevent that.
But if someone never gets measles, they will not die of it.

Furthermore, measles vaccination is a one-time (or perhaps 2-time)
event. Since it almost always prevents the disease, and causes a
level of herd immunity that prevents epidemics, it obviates the need
for nutritional treatment, or any other kind.

Finally, nutritional *treatment* does not prevent measles. There is
no known way of reducing measles incidence nutritionally. So your
treatment-only approach still allows for extensive human suffering,
and some deaths, and saves nothing, not money and not suffering.

>> >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.

There is no good science in your hands-over-the-ears assertions about
"confounding factors," since you haven't been able to identify any
(not any that hold up to scrutiny, that is).

Further evidence that you are wrong comes from various locales where
your fellow-travellers have managed to scare a significant fraction of
the population into not vaccinating. Hey presto, within a few years,
they have measles epidemics, where none had been seen in decades.
This has happened in both England and Germany in recent years.

>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.

I challenge you to point out where I ever said otherwise. You are
monomaniacally focusing on death rates because your contention that
vaccination hasn't affected morbidity is obvious nonsense.

>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?

As I have mentioned repeatedly, either the incidence figures before
and after vaccination are unreliable, or they are reliable. If they
are unreliable, it's up to you to show this, not toss out a lot of
worried comments about how they *might* be inaccurate. Measles is
frequently diagnosed in vaccinated patients. It's not as though
doctors are so ignorant that they think that someone who's been
vaccinated can never get the disease.

>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.

Most of the recent papers about measles vaccination come from Africa,
where the disease is still active, and are comparing the effectiveness
of one form of the vaccine against another. Serological studies make
it quite clear that the vaccine is very effective, over 90% (in
contrast to your baseless assertion that it's "probably no more than
ten percent").

>> >> > 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.

There is when the answer is obvious to anyone who made it through
9th grade math.

>But I think I understand your argument about percentages. Since the
>absolute numbers are small, fluctuations are not meaningful. Is that
>it?

They're not meaningless, but they're not as meaningful as you're
trying to claim. If vaccination had been launched in 1963, and over
the next five years, measles cases dropped 10%, I would agree that it
had hardly worked, or maybe hadn't worked at all.

Likewise, if there were five cases this year and 55 cases next year,
that's a 1000% rise, but big deal. 55 vs 400,000?

>Well, these spikes DID take place and they happened during the period
>of vaccination, therefore it seems we need to explain them.

Indeed we do. A rise to a significant fraction of pre-vaccination
levels is cause for considerable concern. However, levels have since
dropped down to almost nothing, so whatever the cause was, it clearly
has not continued.

>Shrugging it off with "oh well, *** happens, it was just 50 people"
>doesn't make your assertion about vaccine ring true.

Except that wasn't my assertion. Remember that little go-round we had
about "strawman arguments?"

>> >> 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.

My, my, aren't we good at misreading things! You really ARE getting
desperate. It's been obvious all along that measles is not generally
fatal. I said "some" would die, which is true. How you turned that
into "everyone will die" is known only to you.

>The fact is, natural immunity is supported by nutrient homeostasis

If that's a fact, how come morbidity hadn't been changing
significantly over so many decades?

>and that is how people avoid getting disease in the first place.

They weren't avoiding it, so your contention is irrelevant.

>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?

Tautologies are not going to support your case.

>> >> 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.

Not sure why this got moved all the way down here, but it's still
important. Those 55,000 cases over three years (or an average of
about 18,000 per year) are still an order of magnitude less than the
best pre-vaccination levels. There may have been flaws in the
program, but that's miles from saying it didn't work at all.

>> >> >> >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.

That's why you're not citing it for me, right? That little CDC
excerpt above noted that 90% of the deaths were in the unvaccinated.

>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.

You think that because you want to believe it. I'm aware of outbreaks
in which half the victims had been vaccinated. The anti-vacs like to
scream about that. What they don't like to point out is that while
over half the cases were in vaccinated persons, something like 90% of
the population was vaccinated. Since you seem to have trouble with
numbers, let's whip up an example with those percentages. Let's say
that there are 1000 students in a school and 90% of them are
vaccinated, and there are 80 cases of measles and half of them are in
vaccinated persons. So:

100 unvaccinated students 900 vaccinated students
40 cases of measles here 40 cases of measles here
40% chance of getting it 4.4% chance of getting it

I like those odds, especially since vaccinated persons usually get a
milder form of the disease.

>> 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.

OK, you were just blowing smoke, then. Thanks.

>> >> 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.

What trend? There was no downtrend in morbidity.

>> >> 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.

It's not that easy a disease to mistake for something else. What,
exactly is being misdiagnosed?

>> 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.

But once it does show up, everyone starts looking for it. So your
contention is implausible.

>> 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.

We could toss in things like antibody titres, too, but I'm sure you'll
be all set to try to handwave those away too.

>> >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.

Actually, it doens't. Nutritional status matters once someone *gets*
measles. It's irrelevant in whether or not they contract measles.
But vaccination is very relevant to whether or not they contract
measles, and to how severe a case they'll get if they do.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
.

Quantcast