 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008MEASLES CASES BY YEAR
MEASLES CASES BY YEAR – PROVIDED BY D.C. SESSIONS Measles, United States) Year Cases Deaths 1950 319,124 1951 530,118 1952 683,077 1953 449,146 1954 682,720 1955 555,156 1956 611,936 1957 486,799 1958 763,094 1959 406,162 1960 441,703 380 1961 423,919 434 1962 481,530 408 1963 385,156 364 1964 458,083 421 1965 261,904 276 1966 204,136 261 1967 62,705 81 1968 22,231 24 1969 25,826 41 1970 47,351 89 1971 75,290 90 1972 32,275 24 1973 26,690 23 1974 22,094 20 1975 24,374 20 1976 41,126 12 1977 57,345 15 1978 26,871 11 1979 13,597 6 The data that Dougie left out, however, is VERY revealing. Here is the table with measles cases and deaths (prior to measles vaccine) starting in 1930. Year Cases Deaths 1930 419,465 3,783 1931 474,549 3,523 1932 403,294 1,926 1933 400,894 2,813 1934 799,455 6,986 1935 743,856 3,907 1936 299,493 1,267 1937 321,510 1,501 1938 822,811 3,296 1939 403,318 1,174 1940 291,162 706 1941 894,134 2,279 1942 547,393 1,302 1943 633,627 1,301 1944 630,291 1,923 1945 146,002 307 1946 694,843 1,310 1947 222,375 472 1948 615,104 888 1949 625,281 949 1950 319,124 468 1951 530,118 683 1952 683,077 618 1953 449,146 462 1954 682,720 518 1955 555,156 345 1956 611,936 530 1957 486,799 389 1958 763,094 552 1959 406,162 385 1960 441,703 380 1961 423,919 434 1962 481,530 408 ---vaccine introduced--- 1963 385,156 364 1964 458,083 421 1965 261,904 276 1966 204,136 261 1967 62,705 81 1968 22,231 24 1969 25,826 41 1970 47,351 89 1971 75,290 90 1972 32,275 24 1973 26,690 23 1974 22,094 20 1975 24,374 20 1976 41,126 12 1977 57,345 15 1978 26,871 11 1979 13,597 6 If you chart this into a spreadsheet, as I have, you will see that measles mortality had declined by 95% prior to introduction of the vaccine. Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to other (probably nutritional) factors. Any reduction in infectious disease *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent decline in the *severity* of morbidity (i.e, pathology), as the degree of pathology and death, as in all disease, are strongly related. Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild sequalae and lower deaths prior to vaccine proves that factors other than vaccine were responsible for these declines. The progression of measles as a less threatening illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas vaccinated children who later became infected would be unlikely to see a doctor or, in the event of a doctor's visit, their vaccine status, combined with mild pathology, would likely preempt the necessary bloodwork. Measles today, as it was during the 1950s, has become a nuisance infection that results in a child being kept out of school for a day or two with a "flu bug." > The data that Dougie left out, however, is VERY revealing. Here is > the table with measles cases and deaths (prior to measles vaccine) [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > ---vaccine introduced--- Actually, it was approved in 1963 and started widespread use in 1965. > 1963 385,156 364 > 1964 458,083 421 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > measles mortality had declined by 95% prior to introduction of the > vaccine. Yup -- antibiotics do a lot to make measles pneumonia survivable. > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to other > (probably nutritional) factors. Pure speculation, contrary to the evidence of the times. (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen and antibiotics. > Any reduction in infectious disease > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent decline in > the *severity* of morbidity (i.e, pathology), as the degree of > pathology and death, as in all disease, are strongly related. Leaving out a few things there, such as the treatment options for complications. The primary cause of measles deaths prior to antibiotics was secondary pneumonia; it is ludicrous to infer that measles itself was any less severe just because a way was found to improve survival from secondary infections. > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably captured > to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild sequalae and lower > deaths prior to vaccine proves that factors other than vaccine were > responsible for these declines. That doesn't follow. Again, the availability of oxygen and antibiotics for the most severe respiratory cases doesn't mean anything with regard to the non-respiratory sequelae, and in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates of measles-induced neurological impairment to this day. You are, of course, welcome to present any such data in your posession. > The progression of measles as a less > threatening illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nuisance infection that results in a child being kept out of school > for a day or two with a "flu bug." It's not even a nuisance infection; it's totally absent except in rare instances where (as this year) travelers bring it to a cluster of susceptibles from somewhere (e.g. Switzerland) where there is an outbreak. The fact that the patients were quickly identified in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your contention that it's a common disease. It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are known to not be immunized against measles. If, indeed, the disease is common but so mild as to be unnoticed then there will be a high proportion with positive immunity. Here's a chance to prove your thesis. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <2ef57bc3-94f9-43eb-8eef-9c75d6ec1...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Yup -- antibiotics do a lot to make measles pneumonia survivable. The point is not that antibiotics can't treat such patients, the point is that vaccine was not stemming patient losses. Try to stay on topic. By the way, Vitamin A was used prior to antibiotics, and continues to be used today as recommended by WHO even in children without known deficiencies. Unlike antibiotics, there is no concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these discussions by me, with citations, in the archives. > > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing > > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to > > other (probably nutritional) factors. > > Pure speculation, contrary to the evidence of the times. Can you tell us when foods began to be fortified with USDA recommended vitamins, Dougie? I didn't think so. > (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) > Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen > and antibiotics. Please do present your data to illustrate the "relevance" of antibiotics and/or oxygen to use of vaccine in preventing measles deaths. > > Any reduction in infectious disease > > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > infer that measles itself was any less severe just because a > way was found to improve survival from secondary infections. But we are not talking about the historical use of treatments for secondary infections, we are talking about the historical use of vaccine in preventing measles deaths. If you want to address the issue of declines in measles severity, I am not inferring anything, I am reminding you of the irrefutable decline in mortality *without* vaccine, the point of my discussion. If you want to make the point that *other* pharmaceuticals were "saving the day" in measles patients at an earlier point, by all means present your own data for that argument. So far, you haven't done that. I have referred to vitamin A studies in measles patients because vitamin A continues to be used throughout the world as a very effective (and side effect free) form of treatment. I am making the larger point, as always, that nutrition is the real key to disease resistance and that measles infection *can* be reduced to a nuisance illness in nutrient-deprived populations as studies linking infectious disease and malnourishment have been well documented. That second point, though, is not relevant to the false notion that vaccine was somehow responsible for the historical decline in measles deaths. > > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably > > captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > antibiotics for the most severe respiratory cases doesn't > mean anything with regard to the non-respiratory sequelae... You're still trying to change the focus of the original discussion, as you usually do. This is just another opportunity for me to introduce the topic of vitamin A studies showing the importance of nutrition in disease resistance and patient survival. >, and > in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates > of measles-induced neurological impairment to this day. That doesn't support the notion that vaccine was responsible for the huge decline in measles mortality or that nutrition is not the primary factor inferring disease resistance in a human population. > You are, of course, welcome to present any such data in your > posession. The data I cited supports my arguments. So far, you haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of your own. > > The progression of measles as a less > > threatening illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of susceptibles from somewhere (e.g. Switzerland) where there is > an outbreak. How do you know? Throughout the 20th century, measles infections were notoriously under reported. Now you want to use the conclusion of your argument (ie., that vaccine works), as the premise for your claim that infectious diseases have been quashed using it, when the data simply doesn't support it. > The fact that the patients were quickly identified > in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your > contention that it's a common disease. I didn't characterize its prevalance whatsoever, you're making that up. > It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. > Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Here's a chance to prove your thesis. The data already prove that vaccine was not a factor in reducing severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, Dougie, not mine. > In message <2ef57bc3-94f9-43eb-8eef-9c75d6ec1...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Actually, it was approved in 1963 and started > widespread use in 1965. That doesn't change anything. > > 1963 385,156 364 > > 1964 458,083 421 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yup -- antibiotics do a lot to make measles pneumonia survivable. You are missing the point. The fact that vaccine was not the agent responsible for stemming all those measles deaths is what you are overlooking, or more likely, distorting. By the way, Vitamin A was used prior to antibiotics, and continues to be used today as recommended by WHO even in children without known deficiencies. Unlike antibiotics, there are no troublesome side effects and no concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these discussions by me, with citations, in the archives. > > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing > > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to > > other (probably nutritional) factors. > Pure speculation, contrary to the evidence of the times. What evidence are you referring to? You probably don't know that foods began to be fortified with USDA recommended vitamins beginning in the 1920s, with additional nutrients added to consumer staples in the 1930s and 1940s. > (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) A typically vacuous remark. > Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen > and antibiotics. Please do explain how antibiotics and/or oxygen have anything to do with use of vaccine in preventing measles mortality. > > Any reduction in infectious disease > > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent > > decline in the *severity* of morbidity (i.e, pathology), as the > > degree of pathology and death, as in all disease, are strongly > > related. > Leaving out a few things there, such as the treatment options > for complications. The primary cause of measles deaths prior > to antibiotics was secondary pneumonia; it is ludicrous to > infer that measles itself was any less severe just because a > way was found to improve survival from secondary infections. Again, we are not talking about the historical use of treatments for secondary infections, we are talking about the historical use of vaccine in preventing measles deaths. An enormous decline in mortality occurred *without* vaccine and you have made every attempt to distort that fact. > > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably > > captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild > > sequalae and lower deaths prior to vaccine proves that factors > > other than vaccine were responsible for these declines. > That doesn't follow. Again, the availability of oxygen and > antibiotics for the most severe respiratory cases doesn't > mean anything with regard to the non-respiratory sequelae... You're still trying to change the focus of the original discussion, as you usually do. This is just another opportunity for me to introduce the topic of vitamin A studies showing the importance of nutrition in disease resistance and patient survival. >, and > in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates > of measles-induced neurological impairment to this day. That doesn't mean vaccine was responsible for the huge decline in measles mortality or that nutrition is not the primary factor conferring disease resistance in a human population. > You are, of course, welcome to present any such data in your > posession. The data already cited (by you) supports my arguments. So far, you haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of your own position. > > The progression of measles as a less threatening > > illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > in a child being kept out of school for a day or two with a "flu > > bug." > It's not even a nuisance infection; it's totally absent except in > rare instances where (as this year) travelers bring it to a > cluster of susceptibles from somewhere (e.g. Switzerland) where > there is an outbreak. How do you know? Throughout the 20th century, measles infections were notoriously under reported. Now you want to use the conclusion of your argument (ie., that vaccine works), as the premise for your claim that infectious diseases have been quashed using it, when the data simply doesn't support it. > The fact that the patients were quickly identified > in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your > contention that it's a common disease. I didn't characterize its prevalance whatsoever, you're making that up. > It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. > Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are > known to not be immunized against measles. If, indeed, the > disease is common but so mild as to be unnoticed then there > will be a high proportion with positive immunity. > Here's a chance to prove your thesis. The data already prove that vaccine was not a factor in reducing severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, Dougie, not mine. : You are missing the point. The fact that vaccine was not the agent : responsible for stemming all those measles deaths is what you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these : discussions by me, with citations, in the archives. How do you explain the observations (a) that the decrease in the number of polio cases per year did not occur at the same time as the decrease in the number of measles cases per year and (b) that polio is still endemic in places where smallpox no longer occurs? : The data already prove that vaccine was not a factor in reducing : severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, : Dougie, not mine. This is called a "straw man." Just in case you need some help with identification of logical fallacies, which, as it happens, you do. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Apparently, you take me for a complete fool." "Yeah -- more or less." Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit" > In article <36e98e79-6e2d-4f81-a2f6-aab8df2f0...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the decrease in the number of measles cases per year and (b) that > polio is still endemic in places where smallpox no longer occurs? Do you think maybe viral diseases have unique epidemiologies that reflect the complexity of our responses to them? If you proposed that one illness should closely track another, you would have to explain *that* -- not the fact they don't. > : The data already prove that vaccine was not a factor in reducing > : severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, > : Dougie, not mine. > > This is called a "straw man." Just in case you need some help with > identification of logical fallacies, which, as it happens, you do. You're just running away from the fact that most of the decline in severe measles morbidity occured before the vaccine even existed. Do you or do you not admit that? It's a simple question. A Yes or No will do. > You're just running away from the fact that most of the decline in > severe measles morbidity occured before the vaccine even existed. Do > you or do you not admit that? It's a simple question. A Yes or No > will do. No. You haven't presented anything regarding severe measles morbidity. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ :> : You are missing the point. ?The fact that vaccine was not the :> : agent responsible for stemming all those measles deaths is what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :> : evidence of these discussions by me, with citations, in the :> : archives. :> How do you explain the observations (a) that the decrease in the :> number of polio cases per year did not occur at the same time as :> the decrease in the number of measles cases per year and (b) that :> polio is still endemic in places where smallpox no longer occurs? : Do you think maybe viral diseases have unique epidemiologies that : reflect the complexity of our responses to them? If you proposed that : one illness should closely track another, you would have to explain : *that* -- not the fact they don't. You are the one who claims that the main factor in the decreasing incidence of disease is improved sanitation. Therefore, it is up to you to explain how data apparently inconsistent with your thesis is actually consistent with it. I already know the correct explanation of the two observations that I listed. :> : The data already prove that vaccine was not a factor in reducing :> : severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : you or do you not admit that? It's a simple question. A Yes or No : will do. The reason for that has already been explained to you. The issue is not "why did the mortality rate for people who contracted measles decline"; it is "why did the *incidence* of measles decline within a short period of the introduction of the vaccine." These are two separate issues, and your attempt to conflate them is as fine an example of the straw man fallacy as I have seen lately. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" >> In message <2ef57bc3-94f9-43eb-8eef-9c75d6ec1...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > That doesn't change anything. Ah, the classic "Proof by confident assertion." If it doesn't change anything, your line (above) was just an attempt at distraction. Fair enough. >> > 1963 385,156 364 >> > 1964 458,083 421 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > responsible for stemming all those measles deaths is what you are > overlooking, or more likely, distorting. No, it's just something that isn't in evidence. Personally I'm not prepared to write off several hundred deaths per year and thousands of cases of lifelong impairment as beneath notice. > By the way, Vitamin A was > used prior to antibiotics, and continues to be used today as > recommended by WHO even in children without known deficiencies. Good stuff -- but it doesn't prevent measles and there isn't any data showing that it prevents any of the neurological sequelae. It certainly doesn't prevent all cases of pneumonia. > Unlike antibiotics, there are no troublesome side effects and no > concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these > discussions by me, with citations, in the archives. Moot point, since it's only partially effective. Vaccines, on the other hand, have the potential to completely eliminate measles just as smallpox has been eliminated. At which point all of the discussions regarding amelioration of symptoms becomes totally moot. >> > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing >> > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to >> > other (probably nutritional) factors. >> Pure speculation, contrary to the evidence of the times. > > What evidence are you referring to? Yours, posted above: the incidence of the disease remained approximately constant for three decades, then dropped by an order of magnitude in one. Pure coincidence, of course, or perhaps the USA finally got indoor plumbing or something. > You probably don't know that > foods began to be fortified with USDA recommended vitamins beginning > in the 1920s, with additional nutrients added to consumer staples in > the 1930s and 1940s. Which affected how much of the populace? Unless it was close to 100%, the impact on case mortality would be minimal. >> (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) > > A typically vacuous remark. Which is an even more vacuous way of avoiding presenting any substantive argument. >> Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen >> and antibiotics. > > Please do explain how antibiotics and/or oxygen have anything to do > with use of vaccine in preventing measles mortality. They have the same relevance as the purported changes in diet in the 1930s -- with the difference that they have a direct connection to the causes of measles mortality at that time. >> > Any reduction in infectious disease >> > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mortality occurred *without* vaccine and you have made every attempt > to distort that fact. No, *I'm* talking about the use of vaccine to prevent *MEASLES*. *YOU* are dragging in the subject of measles deaths in the 1930s, which were overwhelmingly caused by secondary infections. Thus the treatment of secondary infections bears directly on the same thing _you_ are bringing up: the decline in measles mortality prior to the introduction of vaccines. >> > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably >> > captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the topic of vitamin A studies showing the importance of nutrition in > disease resistance and patient survival. I find it very interesting that you keep changing the subject from vaccine prevention of measles (1960s on) to the prevention of measles pneumonia deaths in the 1930s, then when I address the change that *you* made, you accuse me of changing the subject. I think there's a word for that. >>, and >> in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > measles mortality or that nutrition is not the primary factor > conferring disease resistance in a human population. I trust that you can at least agree that measles mortality cannot exceed measles morbidity? If so, you have a bit of a task ahead of you to account for the disappearance of measles from the Western Hemisphere. Any speculation on what the mortality rate would be if there were cases is just that, speculative, since there ARE NO NATIVE CASES. A bit of an elephant in the living room, that. As for nutrition being the "primary factor conferring disease resistance in a human population" it is trivially clear that malnourishment impairs disease resistance. That is not the same as nutrition being sovereign in disease resistance. >> You are, of course, welcome to present any such data in your >> posession. > > The data already cited (by you) supports my arguments. So far, you > haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of your own > position. I wouldn't want to confuse you by (as you've put it) changing the subject, so which straw man are you saying I haven't supported? >> > The progression of measles as a less threatening >> > illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that infectious diseases have been quashed using it, when the data > simply doesn't support it. Nothing circular about it -- I'm going on the same data source you posted. No theory required to get to "no native measles cases," because it's a simple observed fact. All over the western hemisphere. As for underreporting, there's "underreported" and "not reported." Imagine whatever rate of under-reporting you like, you don't get to zero. Manifestly, *someone* is reporting measles cases or we wouldn't have the cluster reports that happened this year. And yet, zero is what we have. You earlier made the claim that measles is still prevalent but not noticed by anyone, which is a VERY remarkable claim. Fortunately, it's easy for you to prove as outlined elsewhere. >> The fact that the patients were quickly identified >> in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your >> contention that it's a common disease. > > I didn't characterize its prevalance whatsoever, you're making that > up. Message <2ef57bc3-94f9-43eb-8eef-9c75d6ec1255@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, this thread, 23 Apr 2008 23:30:02 +0000: # Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably captured # to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild sequalae and lower # deaths prior to vaccine proves that factors other than vaccine were # responsible for these declines. The progression of measles as a less # threatening illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas # vaccinated children who later became infected would be unlikely to see # a doctor or, in the event of a doctor's visit, their vaccine status, # combined with mild pathology, would likely preempt the necessary # bloodwork. Measles today, as it was during the 1950s, has become a # nuisance infection that results in a child being kept out of school # for a day or two with a "flu bug." It ain't "a nuisance infection" if it's not happening. However, if I've misunderstood you and you're actually granting that measles is vanishingly prevalent today then it doesn't matter. >> It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. >> Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > severe measles morbidity, which means it's your thesis to prove, > Dougie, not mine. The data show no such thing and all the handwaving you've done hasn't distracted from that fact. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <36e98e79-6e2d-4f81-a2f6-aab8df2f0...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > If it doesn't change anything, your line (above) > was just an attempt at distraction. Fair enough. You said the vaccine was approved in 1963 and started *widespread* use in 1965, which didn't change the fact that it began* to be used in 1963, the point you appear to be contesting. The distraction is all yours. > >> > 1963 385,156 364 > >> > 1964 458,083 421 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > No, it's just something that isn't in evidence. What, exactly, are you saying is not in evidence? The evidence that measles vaccine could not have been responsible for reductions in measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, since it didn't exist. > Personally > I'm not prepared to write off several hundred deaths per > year and thousands of cases of lifelong impairment as beneath > notice. Is that supposed to be an argument for vaccine affecting measles deaths in a decade when the vaccine didn't exist? > > By the way, Vitamin A was > > used prior to antibiotics, and continues to be used today as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any data showing that it prevents any of the neurological > sequelae. It certainly doesn't prevent all cases of pneumonia. There are no guarantees in life, but vaccine remains unproven and is now strongly implicated in neurological disease. I would also choose vitamin A (and a few other choice nutrients) over any drug in the event of respiratory illness. > > Unlike antibiotics, there are no troublesome side effects and no > > concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all of the discussions regarding amelioration of symptoms > becomes totally moot. Too bad you have no science supporting these beliefs of yours. > >> > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing > >> > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > an order of magnitude in one. Pure coincidence, of course, > or perhaps the USA finally got indoor plumbing or something. No one said it was a coincidence, it wasn't. The point is that rates of infection ceased to be predictive of death long before the vaccine was introduced. It's not credible to say that vaccine was somehow responsbile for the continuing downward trend in severe morbidity leading to death when the disease had attenuated to such a large degree by the time vaccine was rolled out. Rates of infection were never reliably assessed to begin with, by the way, so one has to rely on stats for death which were more readily associated with a cause of mortality. > > You probably don't know that > > foods began to be fortified with USDA recommended vitamins beginning [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which affected how much of the populace? Unless it was close > to 100%, the impact on case mortality would be minimal. Case mortality began to drop substantially during the 1950s, a full decade before the measles vaccine was introduced. I'd say that consumption of food was more widespread than availablity of medical care during the 1940s and 1950s, wouldn't you? Hell, I'd say eating is more widespread than getting medical care during 2008. > >> (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) > > > A typically vacuous remark. > > Which is an even more vacuous way of avoiding presenting > any substantive argument. You were already presented with that evidence, which you conveniently ignored. Food fortification mandated by USDA beginning in the 1920s affected population level diseases, something you apparently did not know. > >> Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen > >> and antibiotics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the 1930s -- with the difference that they have a direct > connection to the causes of measles mortality at that time. No factor affecting a patient's prognosis is without a direct connection to his health outcome. I also never said that emergency care is not often effective. The problem is that your defense of measles vaccine is really a defense of *treatment* of measles complications. The fact that ER protocols can stabilize a patient with life threatening illness doesn't mean vaccine is effective or safe. > >> > Any reduction in infectious disease > >> > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > thing _you_ are bringing up: the decline in measles mortality > prior to the introduction of vaccines. You still haven't proven that measles vaccine had anything to do with preventing measles, and a dramatic decline in severe morbidity during the 1950s makes the case for other factors playing a much larger role. > >> > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably > >> > captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I think there's a word for that. I'm still waiting for any scientific evidence to support your case, one supposedly in favor of vaccine. > >>, and > >> in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > task ahead of you to account for the disappearance of measles > from the Western Hemisphere. Again, we don't know what rates of infection *are* if the sequalae are too mild for medical evaluation to occur. Rates of infection have *never* been reliably assessed, and there is no reason to think that vaccine changes that. > Any speculation on what the > mortality rate would be if there were cases is just that, > speculative, since there ARE NO NATIVE CASES. A bit of an > elephant in the living room, that. Mortality declines were quite evident during the 1950s and early 1960s using the very data you provided to Myrl for her promotion of vaccine. I know, that was back in April, and your memory is limited (at best) to today. > As for nutrition being the "primary factor conferring disease > resistance in a human population" it is trivially clear that > malnourishment impairs disease resistance. That is not the > same as nutrition being sovereign in disease resistance. What is? > >> You are, of course, welcome to present any such data in your > >> posession. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the subject, so which straw man are you saying I haven't > supported? Actually, you haven't cited any published science at all in your support of measles vaccine. > >> > The progression of measles as a less threatening > >> > illness also makes the case for vaccine bias, whereas [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cases," because it's a simple observed fact. All over the > western hemisphere. See above. > As for underreporting, there's "underreported" and "not > reported." Imagine whatever rate of under-reporting you > like, you don't get to zero. Manifestly, *someone* is > reporting measles cases or we wouldn't have the cluster > reports that happened this year. And regardless of vaccineation status, it would be foolish to think we aren't missing more than we are detecting. > And yet, zero is what we have. That's merely a belief that keeps you warm at night. > You earlier made the claim > that measles is still prevalent but not noticed by anyone, > which is a VERY remarkable claim. Fortunately, it's easy > for you to prove as outlined elsewhere. It's not remarkable at all. People have viruses and develop antibodies with and without vaccine every day. How we manifest such diseases is as variable as our individual biochemistry. We've been doing this for sevearl millions of years. > >> The fact that the patients were quickly identified > >> in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > if I've misunderstood you and you're actually granting that > measles is vanishingly prevalent today then it doesn't matter. The quote above doesn't include a comment about the prevalence of measles. I merely stated that measles continues to exist. > >> It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. > >> Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The data show no such thing and all the handwaving you've > done hasn't distracted from that fact. The McKinlay study cited in Public Health at the Crossroads (pg 43) proves you wrong. : What, exactly, are you saying is not in evidence? The evidence that : measles vaccine could not have been responsible for reductions in : measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, since it didn't : exist. How do you explain the decline in measles *incidence*? Do you even understand that there is a difference between the *incidence* of a disease and the *mortality rate* among those who have already contracted the disease? Is there some reason (other than the two obvious candidates) that you refuse to acknowledge that in the case of measles, the reduction in *mortality* among those who had already contracted disease is not necessarily directly connected with the reduction in *incidence* -- and that the reduction in mortality can be explained in terms of medical interventions that you claim do not work? : Is that supposed to be an argument for vaccine affecting measles : deaths in a decade when the vaccine didn't exist? The claim -- one that you have yet to address -- is that the vaccine affected measles *incidence*. : There are no guarantees in life, but vaccine remains unproven and is : now strongly implicated in neurological disease. Would you care to cite a study in which such implications are shown? I didn't think so. : Too bad you have no science supporting these beliefs of yours. Are you aware that vitamin A is toxic in large doses? : You were already presented with that evidence, which you conveniently : ignored. Food fortification mandated by USDA beginning in the 1920s : affected population level diseases, something you apparently did not : know. If this is the case, why did the mortality *rate* (number of deaths divided by number of cases) decrease more or less exponentially from 1930 until the mid-1950's? If food fortification began in the 1920s, why did the mortality rate continue dropping for an additional 30 years? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > If this is the case, why did the mortality *rate* (number of deaths > divided by number of cases) decrease more or less exponentially from > 1930 until the mid-1950's? If food fortification began in the 1920s, > why did the mortality rate continue dropping for an additional 30 years? Actually, the drops are rather distinct steps as new treatments reduced the case mortality. That's what's so funny: PB posts the numbers that contradict the interpretation that he's parroting. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ :> If this is the case, why did the mortality *rate* (number of deaths :> divided by number of cases) decrease more or less exponentially from :> 1930 until the mid-1950's? ?If food fortification began in the 1920s, :> why did the mortality rate continue dropping for an additional 30 years? : Actually, the drops are rather distinct steps as new treatments : reduced the case mortality. I used the numbers from the previous posts and made a graph of mortality rate as a function of time. From 1930 to the mid-1950's, it dropped from about 0.9% (with a lot of year-to-year scatter) to about 0.1%, at which point it more or less levelled off (and actually increased slightly for about a decade thereafter). An exponential fit to the data from 1930 to the point at which the mortality rate levels off has an R of something like 0.95. I'd say that's a pretty good fit. : That's what's so funny: PB posts : the numbers that contradict the interpretation that he's parroting. I still can't figure out if that's because he's really, really dense or if because he's really, really clever and knows that at some point, we'll stop responding to the lies that he continually repeats -- you'll notice that I deleted his reference to the McKinlay and McKinlay study (which it has already been determined he's never seen, let alone read, since he was unable to spell the names of the authors until I found the reference for him) without response. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > In article > <66b0d810-d62d-4e52-a7f9-fe61b795992d@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Would you care to cite a study in which such implications are shown? > I didn't think so. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/8ca27be6ffbffecf > : Too bad you have no science supporting these beliefs of yours. > > Are you aware that vitamin A is toxic in large doses? This thread is not about vitamin A > : You were already presented with that evidence, which you conveniently > : ignored. Food fortification mandated by USDA beginning in the 1920s [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your > truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" >> In message <36e98e79-6e2d-4f81-a2f6-aab8df2f0...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > 1963, the point you appear to be contesting. The distraction is all > yours. No, it was *approved* in 1963. Total vaccinated population: zero. It was *manufactured* and began use in 1964: total vaccinated population for most of the year: zero, the rest of the year minimal. No matter how effective it was in individuals, there weren't enough of them until 1965 to make a difference in the rates. After that, introduction followed the usual replacement progression. Of course, if you want to show that a large percentage of the population was vaccinated during 1963 by all means post the actual numbers. >> >> > 1963 385,156 364 >> >> > 1964 458,083 421 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, since it didn't > exist. What's not in evidence is that there was a reduction in measles mortality during the 1950s. In particular, the decade from 1954-1963 which you claimed saw a reduction at least comparable to the decade that followed. >> Personally >> I'm not prepared to write off several hundred deaths per [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is that supposed to be an argument for vaccine affecting measles > deaths in a decade when the vaccine didn't exist? No, that's an argument for not pretending that having kept nine out of ten measles pneumonia cases from being terminal thanks to oxygen and antibiotics, the remainder can be written off -- which appears to be your argument. >> > By the way, Vitamin A was >> > used prior to antibiotics, and continues to be used today as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vitamin A (and a few other choice nutrients) over any drug in the > event of respiratory illness. A) Not unproven. You're not even arguing against it being effective in preventing measles, you're just pretending that it doesn't matter. B) Not strongly implicated -- just hysteria by people who make a very nice living by selling their services in court. >> > Unlike antibiotics, there are no troublesome side effects and no >> > concern for loss of efficacy with vitamin A. See evidence of these [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Too bad you have no science supporting these beliefs of yours. Vast amounts. Just because you close your eyes and yell, "I can't HEAR YOU!!!" doesn't make it go away. >> >> > Vaccine came into play only *after* a strong and prevailing >> >> > trendline in which the disease was already in retreat due to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of infection ceased to be predictive of death long before the vaccine > was introduced. On the contrary, case mortality remained quite steady for two decades prior to the vaccine, and has remained at about the same level since then. The big advances in case mortality were in the 1930s, with the introduction of oxygen therapy for pneumonia, and the late 40s with antibiotics. However, the #1 influence on measles deaths has always been disease incidence. > It's not credible to say that vaccine was somehow > responsbile for the continuing downward trend in severe morbidity > leading to death when the disease had attenuated to such a large > degree by the time vaccine was rolled out. Severe morbidity remained constant -- measles pneumonia as a percentage of cases is about the same in Europe today as it was in 1900. Having a better chance of surviving it doesn't make it trivial. > Rates of infection were > never reliably assessed to begin with, by the way, so one has to rely > on stats for death which were more readily associated with a cause of > mortality. So you say -- but that's just handwaving. If you don't know where a case of pneumonia comes from, you don't have a "measles death" anyway, and your "count the bodies" approach is tailored to pretend that a week in ICU can be ignored. >> > You probably don't know that >> > foods began to be fortified with USDA recommended vitamins beginning [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Case mortality began to drop substantially during the 1950s, a full > decade before the measles vaccine was introduced. No, it dropped (and this according to your numbers posted above) in the 1930s. It was remarkably constant in the 1950s. You're so busy parroting your scriptwriters you aren't even noticing that you're contradicting your own posts. > I'd say that > consumption of food was more widespread than availablity of medical > care during the 1940s and 1950s, wouldn't you? Hell, I'd say eating > is more widespread than getting medical care during 2008. And cigarettes were also more common than doctors in the 40s and 50s -- which, it would appear, you will credit with all of the gains made during that time. >> >> (Nutrition didn't exactly improve during the Depression.) >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > affected population level diseases, something you apparently did not > know. And still don't. You're still not presenting any evidence other than your own marketing material for any connection, or even enough penetration to make a difference. I do know that none of my ancestors during that time would have seen any fortified foods. By all means show otherwise. >> >> Compare the breakpoints with the introduction of oxygen >> >> and antibiotics. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with life threatening illness doesn't mean vaccine is effective or > safe. Thank you for rebutting your own "deaths are all that matter" argument. Now that we have agreed that improvements in care for those with measles pneumonia don't obviate prevention of the disease itself, we can proceed to discuss incidence. >> >> > Any reduction in infectious disease >> >> > *mortality* is necessarily concomitant with an equivalent [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the 1950s makes the case for other factors playing a much larger > role. Sure I have -- and when I do, you switch the subject to care for those with secondary pneumonia. It's getting monumentally boring, but if you insist on showing yourself to be that shallow then by all means proceed. I believe that this time around you're back to admitting that incidence metric. That's good. >> >> > Regardless of actual infection rates that were never reliably >> >> > captured to begin with, an increasing prevalence of mild [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm still waiting for any scientific evidence to support your case, > one supposedly in favor of vaccine. Immunology 101: the body develops immunity to a pathogen following exposure. The whole process, down to the specific molecules involved, is well-understood now. Rooms full of both animal and human studies, with some very interesting synthetic processes in the works. >> >>, and >> >> in fact there is no evidence of any reduction in the case rates [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > *never* been reliably assessed, and there is no reason to think that > vaccine changes that. Argument from ignorance. >> Any speculation on what the >> mortality rate would be if there were cases is just that, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > vaccine. I know, that was back in April, and your memory is limited > (at best) to today. Case mortality didn't decline materially. In fact, both incidence and mortality remained quite stable through the 1950s and early 1960s. Right up until the vaccine coverage got into double-digit percentages, that is. >> As for nutrition being the "primary factor conferring disease >> resistance in a human population" it is trivially clear that >> malnourishment impairs disease resistance. That is not the >> same as nutrition being sovereign in disease resistance. > > What is? Third base. >> As for underreporting, there's "underreported" and "not >> reported." Imagine whatever rate of under-reporting you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And regardless of vaccineation status, it would be foolish to think we > aren't missing more than we are detecting. In other words, if you can't find any cases just assume them. >> And yet, zero is what we have. > > That's merely a belief that keeps you warm at night. By all means present some. Or maybe a few smallpox cases while you're at it. How about some polio in the Western hemisphere? You're the one claiming that there are measles cases in the USA, or is it Bigfoot? Anyway, whether it's measles or pixies talk is cheap. Show us some. >> You earlier made the claim >> that measles is still prevalent but not noticed by anyone, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diseases is as variable as our individual biochemistry. We've been > doing this for sevearl millions of years. Nice speculation. We could also claim that the Wild Card virus is running among us on the same speculation -- what's missing is any cases. Until then, you could be talking about djinni in Dasani bottles. >> >> The fact that the patients were quickly identified >> >> in both San Diego and Yuma (Yuma?!?!) doesn't support your [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The quote above doesn't include a comment about the prevalence of > measles. I merely stated that measles continues to exist. That's a statement about prevalence. Your claim that it's ignored also runs contrary to recent events, but the handwaving to discount them is obvious. >> >> It would, however, be easy to prove that it is, in fact, common. >> >> Simply do an immune assay of a reasonable population who are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The McKinlay study cited in Public Health at the Crossroads (pg 43) > proves you wrong. No, it doesn't. In fact, it cites vaccines as being a major contributor to improved public health. Even granting your fantasy that other factors dominated the mortality (not morbidity) stats doesn't get you to the "vaccine was not a factor in reducing severe measles." It just gets you to "people were more likely to survive severe measles." So now we can go back to your bistable flip-flopping between avoiding discussing incidence by flipping to case mortality and sliding away from improvements in pneumonia treatment by flopping back to incidence. All to avoid admitting that you don't have any way around the fact that the vaccines prevent measles in the first place. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ :> Mortality declines were quite evident during the 1950s and early 1960s :> using the very data you provided to Myrl for her promotion of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : 1960s. Right up until the vaccine coverage got into double-digit : percentages, that is. Actually, the mortality rate seems to have, if anything, *increased* slightly during that time (although I have neither the time nor the interest to determine whether that increase is statistically significant). No doubt Peter-the-coward-B will tell us that the benefits of vitamin- fortified milk were offset by the radioactive feed given to the cows (thanks to atmospheric testing of atomic weapons, which was not banned until the 1960's). :> What is? : : Third base. What's on second. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It's certainly easy to mock things," agreed Trefusis. "Oddly enough though I've never found it easy to mock anything of value. Only things that are tawdry and fatuous -- perhaps it's just me." > :> Mortality declines were quite evident during the 1950s and early 1960s > :> using the very data you provided to Myrl for her promotion of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to atmospheric testing of atomic weapons, which was not banned until the > 1960's). Well, keep in mind that you can't really say why case mortality increased unless you control for every patient's full genetic profile, family history, sexual history, education level, dietary history back to when s/he was weaned, exposure to ionizing radiation, microwave radiation, sunlight, toxic chemicals, water hardness, etc. Or so he tells us. > :> What is? > : > : Third base. > > What's on second. Frankly, shortstop. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ : Well, keep in mind that you can't really say why case mortality increased : unless you control for every patient's full genetic profile, family history, : sexual history, education level, dietary history back to when s/he was : weaned, exposure to ionizing radiation, microwave radiation, sunlight, : toxic chemicals, water hardness, etc. Only back to when he or she was weaned? That doesn't make any sense. Since the content of breast milk is known to depend on the mother's dietary intake, I would think that you would have to control for that as well. And since the nutrients that would get passed to the developing fetus obviously depend on the mother's nutrition, you'd have to control for that too. And since the mother's ability to properly metabolize her food is a function of *her* dietary history, you'd have to check all of those things for the person's grandmother, and great-grandmother. . . The advantage of this way of thinking is that since it's been shown from mitochondrial DNA that there is one female who appears in everyone's family tree, all of the above are already controlled for. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > The advantage of this way of thinking is that since it's been shown from > mitochondrial DNA that there is one female who appears in everyone's > family tree, all of the above are already controlled for. Well, the *real* advantage is that there is always another factor that one can cite as not being fully accounted for. What, after all, was the Sun sign of the attending midwife when the paternal grandmother was born? Can you be certain that it doesn't have a critical influence? | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > The data that Dougie left out, however, is VERY revealing. Here is > the table with measles cases and deaths (prior to measles vaccine) [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > nuisance infection that results in a child being kept out of school > for a day or two with a "flu bug." What makes you think measles is less severe? It still kills -- see http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77506 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4792756.stm and yet vaccination works to reduce deaths in these African and Asian populations. It is irresponsible to attack vaccination without looking at all the evidence. It is conceivable that death rates from measles in developed countries dropped early last century partly due to better medical care and better general nutrition, but measles is advancing again now in the same populations, whenever there is reduced uptake of measles vaccination due to Wakefield and associates e.g. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77506 And how can our immune systems be working better? Alt.med constantly informs us that people's immune systems are being devastated by dietary and vitamin deficiencies and poisoning by fluoride, vaccines, pesticides, etc. We are supposedly at our last gasp, health-wise, yet vaccines still seem able to help us victims of Western lifestyles. PM |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.