<Rich.@.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Mar 2004 06:36:02 -0800,
[email protected]
> (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >"Anth" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> >> "CBI" <
[email protected]> wrote in message 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.
> >
> >The "gradient"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> >Have you ever run a regression equation?
> >
> >Give it up Anth - you have no clue.
That isn't my point Rich. The epidemic peaked then fell, you
don't know what caused it. You can assume that it's the
vaccine, show me a well designed study to how otherwise.
> Anth will likely never give it up. He has decided that the
> evidence is *weak* that the polio vaccine was critical in
> reducing the incidence of polio to virtually zero in North
> America.
I didn't say that with your spin.
> He will not change his mind regardless of how much
> evidence anyone produces. This is quite obvious.
No I won't because simply you don't know what the hell was
happening to the curve.
> He will keep mindlessly repeating that the incidence of
> polio was on a decline before polio vaccine was
> introduced. It is pointless to try to convince him
> otherwise. However it is important to refute his claim
> with objective statistical and epidemiological evidence.
You got it.
> All Anth can do is come up with strawman arguments like
> asserting that people think that polio vaccine is 100%
> effective or 100% safe. It is neither. Smallpox vaccine
> was also not 100% effective or 100% safe.
We're talking polio not smallpox. Where's the cases of
smallpox in the UK? You assert that it's the vaccine, now
how come in other studies there's outbreaks?
> However it is pretty clear that the reason that the
> world is small pox free (except for lab specimens)
> because of vaccines. Anth will probably say that we
> don't know that small pox would not have been wiped out
> due to downward trend.
Show me a well designed study.
> For whatever reason Anth does not *want* to believe that
> vaccines can be a very effective way to reduce the
> incidence of disease. It is ironic since vaccines are a
> great preventative medicine program. An ounce of
> prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sadly there are some
> with their heads in the sand (or elsewhere).
Neither do you want to believe that there's treatments out
there that work outside of mainstream.
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
> >
> >js
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> The best defense to logic is ignorance
wN8c-