4 ms·

1.Before vaccinations, there existed several diseases that killed millions and maimed millions more on a routine basis. 2. Vaccines have been developed for many

1.Before vaccinations, there existed several diseases that killed millions and maimed millions more on a routine basis. 2. Vaccines have been developed for many of these diseases, and deployed out into the population. 3. These diseases no longer kill millions and maim millions more. I'll just leave this here: http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html I've seen similar graphs over the years, basically arguing that these diseases were in long-term decline before the introduction of their respective vaccines, and that the vaccines merely sealed the deal. Were I more ambitious, I'd seek out the source data from official sources, and confirm or refute the analysis myself. This paper appears to have asked the same questions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088445 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088445 It came to the following conclusion: Historical data provide evidence of proof of efficacy of mass immunization for measles, polio, rubella, mumps, and pertussis, but not for diphtheria or tetanus. This does not contradict the claim that the incidence of said diseases were already in significant decline prior to the introduction of immunizations, or that immunizations were not necessary for eradication. It seems like a rather obvious analysis to do: compare the maximum historic incidence of said disease, the incidence at the time of vaccine introduction, and the rates of decline prior to and following said introduction. It should be fairly easy to argue from that whether a) the vaccine contributed to eradication, and b) the vaccine was necessary for eradication.

anthonyb 16y ago
> I'll just leave this here: > http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html Ooh, is that a rabid anti-vax site? Let's look at the home page... GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION WHY VACCINES ARE INEFFECTIVE WHY VACCINES ARE HARMFUL WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES THE BENEFICIAL NATURE OF CHILDHOOD INFECTION Yep, looks like it.
- pradocchia 16y ago
  Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs. similar graphs, less inflammatory sites: http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTopic/topicID/22/ http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTo... http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/ http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/ The CDC addresses the claim of historical decline here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm with this graph: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence.gif http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence... Well, sure, so the measles vaccine sealed the deal, yes. But then you look at the longer timeline, and the vaccination occurred on the tail end of a much longer decline. Science-Based Medicine has a particularly indignant blog entry on the topic here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 Note the same trimming of the timeline. I suspect the truth here is that vaccines were indeed effective in the (near-) eradication of most infectious diseases, but these diseases were already in longterm historic decline due to other more instrumental factors, like increasing urbanization and improved sanitation.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    > Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs. Yes, yes I did. The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility. Better hygiene and medical care helps stop people dying of infectious disease. But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective. Oh look, here's a better image: http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageDetails/resourceID/441D4553-EC3D-55E7-FE3BC14C5A631902/ http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageD... Right? There are hundreds of these sorts of graphs and epidemiological studies out there, and they all look pretty much exactly the same. Better hygiene only gets you so far - to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.
    - pradocchia 16y ago

anthonyb 16y ago

> I'll just leave this here: > http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html Ooh, is that a rabid anti-vax site? Let's look at the home page... GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION WHY VACCINES ARE INEFFECTIVE WHY VACCINES ARE HARMFUL WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES THE BENEFICIAL NATURE OF CHILDHOOD INFECTION Yep, looks like it.

pradocchia 16y ago
Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs. similar graphs, less inflammatory sites: http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTopic/topicID/22/ http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTo... http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/ http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/ The CDC addresses the claim of historical decline here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm with this graph: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence.gif http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence... Well, sure, so the measles vaccine sealed the deal, yes. But then you look at the longer timeline, and the vaccination occurred on the tail end of a much longer decline. Science-Based Medicine has a particularly indignant blog entry on the topic here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 Note the same trimming of the timeline. I suspect the truth here is that vaccines were indeed effective in the (near-) eradication of most infectious diseases, but these diseases were already in longterm historic decline due to other more instrumental factors, like increasing urbanization and improved sanitation.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  > Did you consider the content of my post before posting that knee-jerk reaction? The first site is inflammatory, but for our purposes it is just hosting some graphs. Yes, yes I did. The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility. Better hygiene and medical care helps stop people dying of infectious disease. But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective. Oh look, here's a better image: http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageDetails/resourceID/441D4553-EC3D-55E7-FE3BC14C5A631902/ http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageD... Right? There are hundreds of these sorts of graphs and epidemiological studies out there, and they all look pretty much exactly the same. Better hygiene only gets you so far - to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.
  - pradocchia 16y ago