"Contaminated" OPV vax. Caught out in genocide



"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>, Anth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >They did drop I graphed it.
>
> Yes, Anth, some years they dropped. And some years they
> went up. And they didn't start to really crash and stay
> there until vaccination came in. I graphed it too.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Ok I challenge you this :-

Show me one point on the map which was larger than thee 1947
incidence which was 7095. Show me another point on that
graph which is larger than that. You can't because there's
none, you assert that the trends were not decreasing, well
how come there's no points higher than the 1947 incidence?
Also how come every other peak is lower than the 1947
incidence if the trends are not decreasing?. Simply put the
epidemic peaked at 1947.

You assert that the epidemic crashed when the vaccine was
introduced.

My argument is

Now draw curve of best fit across the peaks of the
oscillations and you will see that there's is a clear
downward trend for all the data including when the vaccine
was introduced.

That's my argument which is based on facts, so kindly quit
trying to make me look like a liar.. Anth
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Yep which is just my point it based on an assumption which
> you are guilty of glorifying. Point being you don't know
> what the hell would have happened if the vaccine wasn't
> put in place, and since the curves were on a clear
> downward trend, something which you cannot refute. Anth

I ran the data. Here's the link. http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-
eng.html

Between 1947 and 1957 there was a fairly high incidence rate
(in the thousands). Between 1957 and 1963 the rate was in
the hundreds (during the uptake of the vaccine) and since
then it has been in the single or double digits though in
the past few years its been zero.

Those are the data and the break point is clearly at vaccine
introduction.

This characteristic is consistent across countries. What
data source are you looking at?

js
 
I think that was my source source http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-
eng.html Anth

"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]...
> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Yep which is just my point it based on an assumption
> > which you are
guilty of
> > glorifying. Point being you don't know what the hell
> > would have happened if the
vaccine
> > wasn't put in place, and since the curves were on a
> > clear downward trend, something which you cannot
> > refute. Anth
>
> I ran the data. Here's the link. http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-
> eng.html
>
> Between 1947 and 1957 there was a fairly high incidence
> rate (in the thousands). Between 1957 and 1963 the rate
> was in the hundreds (during the uptake of the vaccine) and
> since then it has been in the single or double digits
> though in the past few years its been zero.
>
> Those are the data and the break point is clearly at
> vaccine introduction.
>
> This characteristic is consistent across countries. What
> data source are you looking at?
>
> js
 
Anth wrote:
> My thoughts :-
>
> A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine isn't
accurate,
> you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
ineffective,
> nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
you lot seem
> to like to spin from the fact that there's very little
cases of wild
> polio recorded, or there's no iron lungs which is what
Bowditch
> parrots) It has been shown that the vaccine was
> effective to a
degree in
> diminishing the incidence of the disease via clinical
studies how
> effective you can't quantify, so imo its success is
overrated.

6331 cases in 1955 down to zero in 1984. It is not possible
to over-rate that.

>
> Ask yourself a question "Do you agree with vaccination?"
> Then ask yourself "Do you agree with introducing a live
> virus into the
population that
> is known to paralyse people?" or "Do you agree with an
> antibody vaccine, which is not known
to paralyse
> people"

There is no such thing as an antibody vaccine.

> Now ask yourself
>
> "When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
(With polio I
> doubt you ever will)

When there is no more wild virus (which seems to be in the
foreseeable future).

> "Do I need to keep vaccinating people, to immunise against
this live
> virus that I introduced into the population a while back"

It does not appear so.

> It's circular, so I don't agree with the polio live
vaccines because
> it kills people, they are cheap alternatives to vaccines
which don't
> kill people.

Vaccines that cannot be administered due to
political/social/monetary restraints and do not induce
enough herd immunity also kill people.

> So now David ask yourself how effective is the vaccine at
halting the
> epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't know, so the
argument is
> futile.

You are right. Asking anything to be 100% effective is
futile. It is effective enough to knock the cases down from
consistantly in the thousands to consistantly under 5.

> As for my votes, I vote no live polio vaccines, and given
the choice
> of my children, they would get the antibody vaccine and
booster shots
> if they decided later in life.

When you invent an "antibody vaccine" (whatever he hell that
is) go ahead and give it to your kids. Until you learn even
the most basic biology of vaccination and how to read a
graph why not leave the policy decisions to the people
who can read the graphs and those that do understand
the vaccines?

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth wrote:
> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article
<[email protected]>,
>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> They did drop I graphed it.
>>
>> Yes, Anth, some years they dropped. And some years they
went up.
>> And they didn't start to really crash and stay there
until
>> vaccination came in. I graphed it too.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are
>> my opinions only, but they're almost
always correct.
>> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is
because giants
>> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson,
MIT)
>
> Ok I challenge you this :-
>
> Show me one point on the map which was larger than thee
1947
> incidence which was 7095. Show me another point on that
> graph which is larger than
that.
> You can't because there's none, you assert that the trends
were not
> decreasing, well how come there's no points higher than
the 1947
> incidence? Also how come every other peak is lower than
the 1947
> incidence if the trends are not decreasing?. Simply put
> the epidemic peaked at 1947.

This is appalleing. basically you are sayig that since the
absolute highest incidence was not the year before the
vaccine was introduced that the trend was downward? What
would have been the odds of that? Explain why the rates
never, even once, went below 100 cases prior to the vaccine
but thay have consistently been that way for decades now.

> That's my argument which is based on facts, so kindly quit
trying to
> make me look like a liar..

We don't think you are lying - just impaired.

--
CBI, MD
 
Anth wrote:
> I think that was my source source http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-
> eng.html

We must be looking at different data tables. The one in this
link shows triple digit rates for every year (it starts in
1912) with some up years and some down and then a rise into
4 digits in the late 1940's to early '50's with things
peaking (up to 6000 cases) in the first half of the '50's.
Then a steady plunge in numbers starting in 1957 (4000+
cases) to triple digits in 1960 (first time since 1946),
double digits in 1963 (first time ever recorded), single
digits in 1970, and under 5 cases per year in ever year
since 1980.

--
CBI, MD
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yep which is just my point it based on an assumption which
>you are guilty of glorifying. Point being you don't know
>what the hell would have happened if the vaccine wasn't put
>in place, and since the curves were on a clear downward
>trend, something which you cannot refute.

Sure I can -- epidemic diseases wax and wane. Look at them
at the right time and they'll appear to be "on a downward
trend." But you cannot attribute the virtually complete
disappearance of polio to anything other than the vaccine.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>My thoughts :-
>
>A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine isn't
>accurate, you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
>ineffective,

I never did. It was very effective.

>nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
>you lot seem to like to spin from the fact that there's
>very little cases of wild polio recorded, or there's no
>iron lungs which is what Bowditch parrots)

Nothing is 100% effective. I have never claimed that
vaccines are 100% effective, nor has anyone else (at least
anyone who has a clue).

The beauty is, though, that vaccines don't have to be 100%
effective in order to wipe out a disease -- they just have
to be effective enough to prevent epidemics.

>It has been shown that the vaccine was effective to a
>degree in diminishing the incidence of the disease via
>clinical studies how effective you can't quantify, so imo
>its success is overrated.

IMO, your opinion doesn't count for much if you're going to
make silly claims like that. Polio was NEVER gone until now.
But now it's entirely gone from the Western Hemisphere (or
was until there were a couple of small outbreaks in the
Caribbean recently).

>Ask yourself a question "Do you agree with
>vaccination?" Then ask yourself "Do you agree with
>introducing a live virus into the population that is
>known to paralyse people?"

I think you mean "Do you agree with introducing a live
virus, which is known to occasionally paralyze people if it
mutates, into the population?"

>"Do you agree with an antibody vaccine, which is not known
>to paralyse people"

The Sabin vaccine wasn't introduced just for fun. It had the
useful side effect of immunizing even people who didn't get
the vaccine, but were exposed to people who did.
Unfortunately, this live (but weakened) virus occasionally
mutates back to the wild form. Given the rarity of polio now
in the developed countries, it no longer makes sense to use
Sabin vaccine there. In underdeveloped countries, where
getting widespread vaccine coverage is difficult, and public
health funds are scarce, that can be very different.

>Now ask yourself
>
>"When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
>(With polio I doubt you ever will)

We already have. Pediatric vaccine recommendations in the US
no longer include the Sabin virus. You're behind the times.

>"Do I need to keep vaccinating people, to immunise against
>this live virus that I introduced into the population a
>while back"

No.

>All this rubbish could have been halted with the use of
>Salk. There's money to be made in vaccinating people with
>live vaccines so they can make money out of vaccinating
>more people with more vaccines.. and on and on...

Wrongo. The virus doesn't continue to shed forever.

>So now David ask yourself how effective is the vaccine at
>halting the epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't know,
>so the argument is futile.

You don't know either, so why are you arguing?

I'll defer to CBI on the other comments.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>, Anth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >They did drop I graphed it.
>>
>> Yes, Anth, some years they dropped. And some years they
>> went up. And they didn't start to really crash and stay
>> there until vaccination came in. I graphed it too.
>>
>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These
>> are my opinions only, but they're almost always
>> correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is
>> because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal
>> Abelson, MIT)
>
>Ok I challenge you this :-
>
>Show me one point on the map which was larger than thee
>1947 incidence which was 7095. Show me another point on
>that graph which is larger than that. You can't because
>there's none, you assert that the trends were not
>decreasing, well how come there's no points higher than the
>1947 incidence?

Are you really this ignorant of statistics? Or even of real-
world experience? Automobile accident fatalitiess peaked
some years ago in the United States (in the 1960s, I
believe). They've been slowly dropping ever since -- and I
suppose you'll now argue that this had nothing to do with
seatbelts, air bags, and more crashworthy cars.

>Also how come every other peak is lower than the 1947
>incidence if the trends are not decreasing?. Simply put the
>epidemic peaked at 1947.

Yes, *that* epidemic.

>You assert that the epidemic crashed when the vaccine was
>introduced.

It did. What's the beef?

>My argument is
>
>Now draw curve of best fit across the peaks of the
>oscillations and you will see that there's is a clear
>downward trend for all the data including when the vaccine
>was introduced.

You have too few data points to show a proper trend.

>That's my argument which is based on facts, so kindly quit
>trying to make me look like a liar..

You're not a liar. But that doesn't mean you're right,
either.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>, <Rich.@.> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:48:34 GMT, [email protected]
>(David Wright) wrote:
>
>
>>Sure I can -- epidemic diseases wax and wane. Look at them
>>at the right time and they'll appear to be "on a downward
>>trend." But you cannot attribute the virtually complete
>>disappearance of polio to anything other than the vaccine.
>
>Oh yeah. People have been attributing it to everything
>other than vaccine in this newsgroup for years. Sorry to
>quibble but it might have been better to qualify the word
>attribute with "validly".
>
>Many people begin with the assumption that vaccines did not
>reduce incidence of disease. Then they manipulate the
>statistics to confirm their preconceived notion. This is
>what Anth is obviously despite being repeatedly told the
>same information over and over and over again. You can lead
>a horse to water but................

Mea culpa -- for instance, I forgot about our resident idiot
Scudamore and his "polio caused by DDT" claims.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:48:34 GMT, [email protected] (David
Wright) wrote:

>Sure I can -- epidemic diseases wax and wane. Look at them
>at the right time and they'll appear to be "on a downward
>trend." But you cannot attribute the virtually complete
>disappearance of polio to anything other than the vaccine.

Oh yeah. People have been attributing it to everything other
than vaccine in this newsgroup for years. Sorry to quibble
but it might have been better to qualify the word attribute
with "validly".

Many people begin with the assumption that vaccines did not
reduce incidence of disease. Then they manipulate the
statistics to confirm their preconceived notion. This is
what Anth is obviously despite being repeatedly told the
same information over and over and over again. You can lead
a horse to water but................

Aloha,

Rich
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
> standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:34:07 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anth wrote:
>> My thoughts :-
>>
>> A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine isn't
>accurate,
>> you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
>ineffective,
>> nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
>you lot seem
>> to like to spin from the fact that there's very little
>cases of wild
>> polio recorded, or there's no iron lungs which is what
>Bowditch
>> parrots) It has been shown that the vaccine was
>> effective to a
>degree in
>> diminishing the incidence of the disease via clinical
>studies how
>> effective you can't quantify, so imo its success is
>overrated.
>
>6331 cases in 1955 down to zero in 1984. It is not possible
>to over-rate that.

Cue Anth to say that you cannot know that it would not have
declined without the vaccine.

I wonder what Anth thinks about polio epidemics that occur
in populations that are either unvaccinated or in
populations that were vaccinated but vaccinations were
suspended.

You see vaccinations are not just some pie in the sky
alternative medicine quackery. Vaccinations are based upon
principles of immunology relying on the body to react to the
vaccine such that when it is exposed to the actual pathogen
that it will have immunity. The mechanism of action is well
known. The antibody response can be measured. And we have
overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the incidence of
diseases dramatically decreases and stays down in well
vaccinated populations and epidemics occur in unvaccinated
populations.

However despite this evidence Anth will insist that polio
would have gone away without vaccination. He is either
delusional, very stupid or a troll. Take your pick.

Aloha,

Rich

>
>
>>
>> Ask yourself a question "Do you agree with vaccination?"
>> Then ask yourself "Do you agree with introducing a live
>> virus into the
>population that
>> is known to paralyse people?" or "Do you agree with an
>> antibody vaccine, which is not known
>to paralyse
>> people"
>
>There is no such thing as an antibody vaccine.
>
>
>
>> Now ask yourself
>>
>> "When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
>(With polio I
>> doubt you ever will)
>
>When there is no more wild virus (which seems to be in the
>foreseeable future).
>
>
>> "Do I need to keep vaccinating people, to immunise
>> against
>this live
>> virus that I introduced into the population a while back"
>
>It does not appear so.
>
>
>> It's circular, so I don't agree with the polio live
>vaccines because
>> it kills people, they are cheap alternatives to vaccines
>which don't
>> kill people.
>
>Vaccines that cannot be administered due to
>political/social/monetary restraints and do not induce
>enough herd immunity also kill people.
>
>
>> So now David ask yourself how effective is the vaccine at
>halting the
>> epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't know, so the
>argument is
>> futile.
>
>You are right. Asking anything to be 100% effective is
>futile. It is effective enough to knock the cases down from
>consistantly in the thousands to consistantly under 5.
>
>
>> As for my votes, I vote no live polio vaccines, and given
>the choice
>> of my children, they would get the antibody vaccine and
>booster shots
>> if they decided later in life.
>
>When you invent an "antibody vaccine" (whatever he
>hell that
>is) go ahead and give it to your kids. Until you learn
> even the most basic biology of vaccination and how to
> read a graph why not leave the policy decisions to the
> people who can read the graphs and those that do
> understand the vaccines?

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>, Anth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My thoughts :-
> >
> >A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine isn't
> >accurate, you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
> >ineffective,
>
> I never did. It was very effective.
>
> >nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
> >you lot seem to like to spin from the fact that there's
> >very little cases of wild polio recorded, or there's no
> >iron lungs which is what Bowditch parrots)
>
> Nothing is 100% effective. I have never claimed that
> vaccines are 100% effective, nor has anyone else (at least
> anyone who has a clue).
>
> The beauty is, though, that vaccines don't have to be 100%
> effective in order to wipe out a disease -- they just have
> to be effective enough to prevent epidemics.

Then why attribute polio to wiping out the disease?

> >It has been shown that the vaccine was effective to a
> >degree in diminishing the incidence of the disease via
> >clinical studies how effective you can't quantify, so imo
> >its success is overrated.
>
> IMO, your opinion doesn't count for much if you're going
> to make silly claims like that. Polio was NEVER gone until
> now. But now it's entirely gone from the Western
> Hemisphere (or was until there were a couple of small
> outbreaks in the Caribbean recently).

Prove it was the vaccine _only_ that depleted the epidemic
and not combination of diminishing trends or whatever.

> >Ask yourself a question "Do you agree with vaccination?"
> >Then ask yourself "Do you agree with introducing a live
> >virus into the population that is known to paralyse
> >people?"
>
> I think you mean "Do you agree with introducing a live
> virus, which is known to occasionally paralyze people if
> it mutates, into the population?"
>
> >"Do you agree with an antibody vaccine, which is not
> >known to paralyse people"
>
> The Sabin vaccine wasn't introduced just for fun. It had
> the useful side effect of immunizing even people who
> didn't get the vaccine, but were exposed to people who
> did. Unfortunately, this live (but weakened) virus
> occasionally mutates back to the wild form. Given the
> rarity of polio now in the developed countries, it no
> longer makes sense to use Sabin vaccine there. In
> underdeveloped countries, where getting widespread vaccine
> coverage is difficult, and public health funds are scarce,
> that can be very different.

Salk testified that the Sabin vaccine causes deaths, and
this is being reported in the media in foreign countries.

> >Now ask yourself
> >
> >"When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
> >(With polio I doubt you ever will)

Sabin is cheaper, and more labor intensive.

> We already have. Pediatric vaccine recommendations in
> the US no longer include the Sabin virus. You're behind
> the times.

The Sabin was intrudced in the UK after Salk.

> >"Do I need to keep vaccinating people, to immunise
> >against this live virus that I introduced into the
> >population a while back"
>
> No.
>
> >All this rubbish could have been halted with the use of
> >Salk. There's money to be made in vaccinating people with
> >live vaccines so they can make money out of vaccinating
> >more people with more vaccines.. and on and on...
>
> Wrongo. The virus doesn't continue to shed forever.

Yeah so keep innoculating with Salk what's wrong with that?

> >So now David ask yourself how effective is the vaccine at
> >halting the epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't know,
> >so the argument is futile.
>
> You don't know either, so why are you arguing?

Why are you arguing? The thing you you don't know how
effective the vaccine is, what you see and say is based on
the assumption because the trends went down that it was the
vaccine that lowered the, That's my point, look at the
curves in the data.

>
> I'll defer to CBI on the other comments.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
> opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
> have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > My thoughts :-
> >
> > A lot that had been written about the polio
> > vaccine isn't
> accurate,
> > you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
> ineffective,
> > nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
> you lot seem
> > to like to spin from the fact that there's very little
> cases of wild
> > polio recorded, or there's no iron lungs which is what
> Bowditch
> > parrots) It has been shown that the vaccine was
> > effective to a
> degree in
> > diminishing the incidence of the disease via clinical
> studies how
> > effective you can't quantify, so imo its success is
> overrated.
>
> 6331 cases in 1955 down to zero in 1984. It is not
> possible to over-rate that.

So what you are saying is that the vaccine is 100%
effective, which was my point before your assumption which
is wrong. There are outbreaks in 100% vaccinated
populations, you quote to 0, now you can't be sure that
there will not be an outbreak in these populations.

> >
> > Ask yourself a question "Do you agree with vaccination?"
> > Then ask yourself "Do you agree with introducing a live
> > virus into the
> population that
> > is known to paralyse people?" or "Do you agree with an
> > antibody vaccine, which is not known
> to paralyse
> > people"
>
> There is no such thing as an antibody vaccine.

I mean Salk, which doesn't contain live virus (originally it
did and killed few hundred people).

> > Now ask yourself
> >
> > "When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
> (With polio I
> > doubt you ever will)
>
> When there is no more wild virus (which seems to be in the
> foreseeable future).
>
>
> > "Do I need to keep vaccinating people, to immunise
> > against
> this live
> > virus that I introduced into the population a
> > while back"
>
> It does not appear so.

I have saw the studies about persistance of the OPV vaccine
...and if the virus mutates?

> > It's circular, so I don't agree with the polio live
> vaccines because
> > it kills people, they are cheap alternatives to vaccines
> which don't
> > kill people.
>
> Vaccines that cannot be administered due to
> political/social/monetary restraints and do not induce
> enough herd immunity also kill people.

They also cost less, and kill more.

> > So now David ask yourself how effective is the
> > vaccine at
> halting the
> > epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't know, so the
> argument is
> > futile.
>
> You are right. Asking anything to be 100% effective is
> futile. It is effective enough to knock the cases down
> from consistantly in the thousands to consistantly
> under 5.

So why are you quoting that is is 100% effective then ?

> > As for my votes, I vote no live polio vaccines,
> > and given
> the choice
> > of my children, they would get the antibody vaccine and
> booster shots
> > if they decided later in life.
>
> When you invent an "antibody vaccine" (whatever he
> hell that
> is) go ahead and give it to your kids. Until you learn
> even the most basic biology of vaccination and how to
> read a graph why not leave the policy decisions to
> the people who can read the graphs and those that do
> understand the vaccines?

Salk vaccine for my kids, but I don't have much choice since
the population is polluted with the OPV strain.

> --
> CBI, MD
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anth wrote:
> > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> They did drop I graphed it.
> >>
> >> Yes, Anth, some years they dropped. And some years they
> went up.
> >> And they didn't start to really crash and stay there
> until
> >> vaccination came in. I graphed it too.
> >>
> >> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are
> >> my opinions only, but they're almost
> always correct.
> >> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is
> because giants
> >> were standing on my shoulders." (Hal
> >> Abelson,
> MIT)
> >
> > Ok I challenge you this :-
> >
> > Show me one point on the map which was larger than thee
> 1947
> > incidence which was 7095. Show me another point on that
> > graph which is larger than
> that.
> > You can't because there's none, you assert that the
> > trends
> were not
> > decreasing, well how come there's no points higher than
> the 1947
> > incidence? Also how come every other peak is lower than
> the 1947
> > incidence if the trends are not decreasing?. Simply put
> > the epidemic peaked at 1947.
>
> This is appalleing. basically you are sayig that since the
> absolute highest incidence was not the year before the
> vaccine was introduced that the trend was downward? What
> would have been the odds of that? Explain why the rates
> never, even once, went below 100 cases prior to the
> vaccine but thay have consistently been that way for
> decades now.

The trend was downward, and the gradient of the trend didn't
alter much when the vaccine was introduced.

> > That's my argument which is based on facts, so
> > kindly quit
> trying to
> > make me look like a liar..
>
> We don't think you are lying - just impaired.

Of course you're an MD, you think like that.

> --
> CBI, MD
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>, Anth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >My thoughts :-
>> >
>> >A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine
>> >isn't accurate, you can't say that the Salk vaccine was
>> >totally ineffective,
>>
>> I never did. It was very effective.
>>
>> >nor can you say that is totally effective (which is what
>> >you lot seem to like to spin from the fact that there's
>> >very little cases of wild polio recorded, or there's no
>> >iron lungs which is what Bowditch parrots)
>>
>> Nothing is 100% effective. I have never claimed that
>> vaccines are 100% effective, nor has anyone else (at
>> least anyone who has a clue).
>>
>> The beauty is, though, that vaccines don't have to be
>> 100% effective in order to wipe out a disease -- they
>> just have to be effective enough to prevent epidemics.
>
>Then why attribute polio to wiping out the disease?

That doesn't even make sense, nor can I figure out what it
was you were trying to say.

>> >It has been shown that the vaccine was effective to a
>> >degree in diminishing the incidence of the disease via
>> >clinical studies how effective you can't quantify, so
>> >imo its success is overrated.
>>
>> IMO, your opinion doesn't count for much if you're going
>> to make silly claims like that. Polio was NEVER gone
>> until now. But now it's entirely gone from the Western
>> Hemisphere (or was until there were a couple of small
>> outbreaks in the Caribbean recently).
>
>Prove it was the vaccine _only_ that depleted the epidemic
>and not combination of diminishing trends or whatever.

Why would trends diminish, Anth? You're whipping that up out
of whole cloth. Polio has been around for thousands of
years. Furthermore, it still manages to break out (in
unvaccinated populations) every so often, so you can't argue
that it's either gone or has lost its virulence. It *only*
breaks out in populations with significant numbers of
unvaccinated people. So what's YOUR explanation?

>> The Sabin vaccine wasn't introduced just for fun. It had
>> the useful side effect of immunizing even people who
>> didn't get the vaccine, but were exposed to people who
>> did. Unfortunately, this live (but weakened) virus
>> occasionally mutates back to the wild form. Given the
>> rarity of polio now in the developed countries, it no
>> longer makes sense to use Sabin vaccine there. In
>> underdeveloped countries, where getting widespread
>> vaccine coverage is difficult, and public health funds
>> are scarce, that can be very different.
>
>Salk testified that the Sabin vaccine causes deaths, and
>this is being reported in the media in foreign countries.

I just said this, in effect. So why are you repeating it?

>> >Now ask yourself
>> >
>> >"When can I stop vaccinating people with a live virus?"
>> >(With polio I doubt you ever will)
>
>Sabin is cheaper, and more labor intensive.

"More?"

>> We already have. Pediatric vaccine recommendations in
>> the US no longer include the Sabin virus. You're behind
>> the times.
>
>The Sabin was intrudced in the UK after Salk.

In the US as well.

>> Wrongo. The virus doesn't continue to shed forever.
>
>Yeah so keep innoculating with Salk what's wrong with that?

Why give a vaccine that's not needed? If we could wipe out
polio everywhere, we could stop vaccinating, as with
smallpox, and that's the goal.

>> >So now David ask yourself how effective is the vaccine
>> >at halting the epidemic? 100%, 100% of what? You don't
>> >know, so the argument is futile.
>>
>> You don't know either, so why are you arguing?
>
>Why are you arguing? The thing you you don't know how
>effective the vaccine is, what you see and say is based on
>the assumption because the trends went down that it was the
>vaccine that lowered the, That's my point, look at the
>curves in the data.

I already did. They don't show what you think they do.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Anth wrote: 6331 cases in 1955 down to zero in 1984. It is
> not possible to over-rate that.

Oh I think you know it is possible to overrate that - MD
walking advertisement for the effectiveness of the polio
vaccine, but he can quote figures, but can't tell you how
much of those figures were trend and or vaccine. Anth
 
<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 03:34:07 GMT, "CBI"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Anth wrote:
> >> My thoughts :-
> >>
> >> A lot that had been written about the polio vaccine
> >> isn't
> >accurate,
> >> you can't say that the Salk vaccine was totally
> >ineffective,
> >> nor can you say that is totally effective (which
> >> is what
> >you lot seem
> >> to like to spin from the fact that there's very little
> >cases of wild
> >> polio recorded, or there's no iron lungs which is what
> >Bowditch
> >> parrots) It has been shown that the vaccine was
> >> effective to a
> >degree in
> >> diminishing the incidence of the disease via clinical
> >studies how
> >> effective you can't quantify, so imo its success is
> >overrated.
> >
> >6331 cases in 1955 down to zero in 1984. It is not
> >possible to over-rate that.

It's not possible to overate that - ********? (3712 pp cases
in 1955 to be exact.)

>
> Cue Anth to say that you cannot know that it would not
> have declined without the vaccine.

No Rich what I am saying is that you blabber that the
vaccine was responsible for the reduction in cases, when you
don't know how much of that was trend based.

> I wonder what Anth thinks about polio epidemics that occur
> in populations that are either unvaccinated or in
> populations that were vaccinated but vaccinations were
> suspended.

Or indeed in populations that were highly covered and
suffered outbreaks. Of course you think you're safe.

> You see vaccinations are not just some pie in the sky
> alternative medicine quackery. Vaccinations are based upon
> principles of immunology relying on the body to react to
> the vaccine such that when it is exposed to the actual
> pathogen that it will have immunity. The mechanism of
> action is well known. The antibody response can be
> measured. And we have overwhelming epidemiological
> evidence that the incidence of diseases dramatically
> decreases and stays down in well vaccinated populations
> and epidemics occur in unvaccinated populations.

No Rich vaccines are the golden standard of medicine
and when people start questioning them people's
feathers get ruffled?

> However despite this evidence Anth will insist that polio
> would have gone away without vaccination. He is either
> delusional, very stupid or a troll. Take your pick.

No, I do not insist that, what my beef is about it people
like you saying that all the incidence of polio after the
vaccinations were due soley to the vaccine and not trend
combo. Anth