My little boy

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by hotmoon, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 19:36:50 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >I don't know if you'd heard, but the reason that poliomyelitis
    >is a good candidate for total extinction is that the only host
    >it infects is /homo/ /sapiens/


    Indeed. As was small pox.

    Aloha,

    Rich

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     


  2. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Typos from xls file, which I copied from
    http://www.post-polio.org/ipn/ir-eng.html.
    http://juicer565.0-zone.com/polio.xls
    Anth

    "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
    >
    > > http://juicer565.0-zone.com
    > > Yes you are right 1947 7095 1948 1674 1949 5439 1950 5565 1951 1529 1952
    > > 2747 etc.

    >
    > So why do you present two such totally different sets
    > of numbers? Where do they come from, so that we can
    > find out which is accurate?
    >
    > > "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >> In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > ..and the highest incidence was 1947 7095 after that 1948 1674 1950

    5565
    > > etc
    > >> > it continues to drop afterwards.
    > >>
    > >> That's not what your numbers show.
    > >>
    > >> > "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> > news:[email protected]
    > >> >> In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > There was a huge downward trend in infections.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> How so? Per your posted spreadsheet, the raw incidence
    > >> >> of paralytic polio through the 1950s was:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> 1951 10,037
    > >> >> 1952 21,269
    > >> >> 1953 15,648
    > >> >> 1954 18,308
    > >> >> 1955 13,850
    > >> >> 1956 7,911
    > >> >> 1957 2,499
    > >> >> 1958 3,697
    > >> >> 1959 6,289
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I didn't normalize for population because it didn't change
    > >> >> enough during one decade to change the picture. Your "huge
    > >> >> downward trend" had twice as many cases in 1952 as in 1951,
    > >> >> half again as many in 1953, almost 2x in 1954, 40% more in
    > >> >> 1955. By 1956 the killed-virus vaccine was being introduced
    > >> >> so the data are harder to interpret, but there certainly
    > >> >> was no clear downward trend prior to introduction.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> On the other hand, twenty years later:
    > >> >> 1971 17
    > >> >> 1972 29
    > >> >> 1973 7
    > >> >> 1974 7
    > >> >> 1975 8
    > >> >> 1976 12
    > >> >> 1977 17
    > >> >> 1978 9
    > >> >> 1979 26
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Again, the absolute numbers are down by a factor of
    > >> >> 1000:1 or more, even while population has increased.
    > >> >> Extrapolate 1950-1955 as you will, you're not going
    > >> >> to get that much of a reduction.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> --
    > >> >> | "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
    > >> >> | completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
    > >> >> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> | "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
    > >> | completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
    > >> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+

    >
    > --
    > | "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
    > | completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
    > +--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
     
  3. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >"Ilsa9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> >I've not seen any children dieing from polio vaccines recently, but I
    >> >suspect that this will happen in foreign countries who can't afford the
    >> >correct vaccines.
    >> >Anth

    >>
    >> Anth, that says it all, doesn't it? "I've not seen any children..." You
    >> anti-vac morons are such selfish assholes. _YOU_ and _YOUR_ beliefs,

    >_YOU_ and
    >> YOUR_ experiences are the only thing you are concerned with....until

    >_YOUR_ ox
    >> gets gored.

    >
    >Yes it does say it all... cheap vaccines for the poor with more risk.
    >
    >> The skeptics _KNOW_ what is going on the world outside of their own
    >> self-interest. They have Perspective & a sense of responsibility, in

    >constrast
    >> to the childish whims of scientifically illiterate anti-vac whackos.

    >
    >> Stop the polio vaccine and you condemn children and adults to morbidity

    >and
    >> premature death. Of course, why should you give a shit if YOU haven't
    >> personally seen a child in an iron lung?
    >>

    >
    >Personally I don't give a shit about you or your views, but I do give a shit
    >about other people.
    >Anth
    >


    I'm glad to be amongst the many fine things you don't give a shit about. You
    don't give a shit about facts, scientific method, reducing morbidity and
    mortality through vaccination, et al.

    What's wrong with you and your ilk is that you think your views are as valid as
    anyone's simply because they are Yours. You think that science, epidemiology
    in this case, is just a matter or who one chooses to believe.

    Well, guess what? Viruses, Bacteria, and other disease mechanisms don't depend
    on Your acceptance to wreck havoc. Fortunately, vaccines function
    independently of your belief system, too. Do you see a pattern here, Anth?
     
  4. "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://www.geocities.com/harpub/index.html
    > "The experiments of Clark, Frazier, and Amoss show that after intravenous
    > inoculation in monkeys, the virus [filtrate] of poliomyelitis disappears
    > from the blood within 72 hours; and other observations have shown that it

    is
    > only after enormous intravenous doses of the virus that the monkey

    develops
    > the disease. Smaller doses intravenously fail to produce any disturbance."
    > "If injected with 250 to 500 cc [1 to 2 cups!] of the virus by a similar
    > route the animal succumbed to the disease."
    > George Draper, Acute Poliomyelitis (1917)
    > 1 to 2 cups injected into a 20 lb Rhesus monkey is equal to 7 to 14 cups
    > injected into a 150 lb man.
    > Anth
    >


    Really, Anth, your credulity is astonishing. When will it dawn on you that
    the publishers of anti-vac website are not above just making stuff like this
    up? The technology to isolate and identify the polio virus did not exist in
    1917. Today, when the virus can isolated, you won't see scientists strolling
    around with one or two cups of the stuff! A bolus of 250-500cc of just about
    anything would kill a monkey, unless it were 0.9% saline in a severly
    dehydrated animal.

    Who are Clark, Frazier, and Amoss? Where are their experiments published?
    Who is George Draper? Is "Acute Poliomylitis" a journal, a book, an article,
    what?

    If you want to know something about polio, I suggest you stick to sites like
    this:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/polio.pdf

    --Rich
     
  5. Ilsa9

    Ilsa9 Guest

    >and Rich as well.
    >Anth
    >
    >
    >


    How brave you are, Anth! You are just soooo manly and strong in your
    convictions!

    You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the message all you want. You
    can reject the message because it conflicts with your belief system or because
    you don't like the messenger.

    The facts are:

    Vaccines are what caused the dramatic drop in Polio, Small Pox, Measles, et al
    in the areas where they were in widespread use. It is a fact that Polio
    mortality declined prior to the introduction of the vaccine and this was due to
    the iron lung and other treatment advances. The incidence of polio was not on
    the decline. While sanitation often reduces the spread of disease, it had a
    paradoxical effect with polio as age of initial exposure was greater and adults
    are actually more vulnerable than children.

    Vaccines DO undergo rigerous quality control. Eradicating a disease does NOT
    lead to the creation or advancement of another disease as a direct consequence.
    There is no magical cadre of potential diseases waiting to take revenge for
    vaccine eradicated comrades.

    Make a note of these facts.
     
  6. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >No! I've posted more than enough and wasted more than enough time - now you
    >post something.
    >Anth


    Thanks, Anth, I didn't think you could do it. I appreciate your
    confirming my point.

    -- 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)


    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >Well there's strong correlation with wiping one disease out and causing
    >> >others.

    >>
    >> Oh, really? Let's see a few examples.
    >>


    >> >"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]
    >> >> In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > ...and other diseases which leave science scratching their heads will
    >> >> > appear.
    >> >>
    >> >> Are you suggesting that they would /not/ appear if we
    >> >> didn't eliminate smallpox, polio, measles, etc?
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> | "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
    >> >> | completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
    >> >> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  7. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Look at Daves words :-
    >
    >(1)
    >As you continue to demonstrate yourself the Master of Unwarranted
    >Conclusions.
    >There is *nothing* on that web page that mentions the infection "burning
    >itself out."
    >
    >(2)
    >It did a really crappy job of burnout, by the way, considering there were
    >four separate epidemics
    >over a 43-year period. We don't even know if this was an infectious
    >disease.
    >
    >Doesn't (1) contradict (2)


    No, it doesn't. I'm sorry if I'm overtaxing you.

    The only way in which burnout makes sense is if the disease appears,
    rages for a while, and then disappears, never to be seen again. An
    example would be the so-called "Spanish Flu," which killed a lot of
    people over a 2-year (or so) period and then disappeared. Note that
    this is an infectious disease. Noninfectious diseases do not "burn
    out."

    In the case of this mystery disease, it appeared in four separate
    epidemics across a 43-year period. And we have no idea what kind of
    disease it was, or whether it was infectious, so we have no idea
    whether it burned out, or was some sort of poisoning, or what. So, as
    I was saying, you are an idiot, since you are citing this as an
    example without having the slightest idea what it was.

    -- 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)






    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >Interesting .. a disease which 'burned itself out.'
    >> >http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000412.html

    >>
    >> As you continue to demonstrate yourself the Master of Unwarranted
    >> Conclusions. There is *nothing* on that web page that mentions the
    >> infection "burning itself out." It did a really crappy job of
    >> burnout, by the way, considering there were four separate epidemics
    >> over a 43-year period. We don't even know if this was an infectious
    >> disease.
    >>
    >> You are an idiot.
    >>
    >> -- 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)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]
    >> >>
    >> >> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >> news:[email protected]
    >> >> > plague is one.
    >> >> > Anth
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Yersinia Pestis, commonly known as bubonic plague or "the black plague"
    >> >has
    >> >> NOT "burned itself out." The fact that the disease can no longer kill
    >> >> millions in widespread epidemics is a tribute to the brilliant medical

    >men
    >> >> who isolated the bacterium and correctly identified the rat/flea/human
    >> >> vector of the disease, and developed the rodent control programs that
    >> >> brought it under control. The last urban epidemic of plague, if I

    >recall
    >> >> correctly, was in Los Angeles, California in 1925. There have been

    >other
    >> >> lesser outbreaks of the disease since then in India and other places

    >where
    >> >> rodents are poorly controlled. A reservoir of the infection exists in

    >wild
    >> >> rodents in many parts of the world, including the American West, where
    >> >> several isolated human cases are reported nearly every year.
    >> >>
    >> >> Try again. Name a disease that has burned itself out.
    >> >>
    >> >> --Rich
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  8. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >David Wright ignored for calling me a Moron.
    >Anth


    Oh, the humanity. I guess he really is a moron and I offended him.

    -- 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)
     
  9. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >Well there's strong correlation with wiping one disease out and causing
    >> >others.

    >>
    >> Oh, really? Let's see a few examples.
    >>

    >
    >Here's a weak, generalized example, David. Wiping out early death from
    >infectious childhood diseases has raised life expectancy, resulting in a
    >rise in the incidence of diseases of the elderly, i.e., that "cancer
    >epidemic" that Anth keeps bringing up.


    You know, Rich, I'd worry about you if I thought you were being
    serious with this one.

    Anth has no sense of humor, so I'll explain for him: cancer is not an
    infectious disease that has somehow popped up to replace, say,
    cholera.

    -- 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)
     
  10. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> http://www.geocities.com/harpub/index.html
    >> "The experiments of Clark, Frazier, and Amoss show that after intravenous
    >> inoculation in monkeys, the virus [filtrate] of poliomyelitis disappears
    >> from the blood within 72 hours; and other observations have shown that it

    >is
    >> only after enormous intravenous doses of the virus that the monkey

    >develops
    >> the disease. Smaller doses intravenously fail to produce any disturbance."
    >> "If injected with 250 to 500 cc [1 to 2 cups!] of the virus by a similar
    >> route the animal succumbed to the disease."
    >> George Draper, Acute Poliomyelitis (1917)
    >> 1 to 2 cups injected into a 20 lb Rhesus monkey is equal to 7 to 14 cups
    >> injected into a 150 lb man.
    >> Anth
    >>

    >
    >Really, Anth, your credulity is astonishing. When will it dawn on you that
    >the publishers of anti-vac website are not above just making stuff like this
    >up? The technology to isolate and identify the polio virus did not exist in
    >1917. Today, when the virus can isolated, you won't see scientists strolling
    >around with one or two cups of the stuff! A bolus of 250-500cc of just about
    >anything would kill a monkey, unless it were 0.9% saline in a severly
    >dehydrated animal.


    Indeed, no virus had ever been isolated in 1917. It wasn't until the
    1930's that the first virus was isolate (tobacco mosaic virus, for
    those who are interested).

    The *idea* of the virus is a good deal older; it goes back to the
    1890s or so, I believe. But it wasn't till much later that
    sufficiently fine porcelain filters existed that allowed a virus to be
    filtered.

    -- 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)
     
  11. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The importance of continuing mass polio vaccination (Was Re: My
    >little boy)
    >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >Date: 11/9/2003 8:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>No! I've posted more than enough and wasted more than enough time - now you
    >>post something.
    >>Anth

    >
    >Thanks, Anth, I didn't think you could do it. I appreciate your
    >confirming my point.


    That''s a lie, whiich is typical. Anth has done much research and posted much,
    unlike you, who just calls names and is condescending.

    Jan
     
  12. Rich

    Rich Guest


    >>In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:


    >>> Dave Wright calls people 'moron' then demonstrates that he's a moron.


    This is classic. Anth complains about name calling and then in the
    very same sentence she complains about it, she does it!!!

    I would suggest that if Anth does not want to be called a moron for
    him not to act like one.

    For example I would suggest that Anth not say that the polio vaccine
    is effective but not safe and THEN say that there is *no evidence* to
    support the contention that the polio vaccine was responsible for the
    decrease in incidence of polio. What on earth did Anth originally
    think the polio vaccine was effective for, if not to reduce the
    incidence of the disease?!?!?!?

    Aloha,

    Rich

    PS: If Anth does not want to be seen as a moron I would suggest that
    he consider the following wise words: Better to be silent and thought
    a moron, rather than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

    >


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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  13. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The importance of continuing mass polio vaccination (Was Re: My
    >little boy)
    >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >Date: 11/9/2003 8:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>David Wright ignored for calling me a Moron.
    >>Anth

    >
    >Oh, the humanity. I guess he really is a moron and I offended him.


    Which is your intent.

    Sad that.

    Jan
     
  14. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The importance of continuing mass polio vaccination (Was Re: My
    >little boy)
    >From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >Date: 11/9/2003 8:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >Rich Shewmaker <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> >Well there's strong correlation with wiping one disease out and causing
    >>> >others.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, really? Let's see a few examples.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Here's a weak, generalized example, David. Wiping out early death from
    >>infectious childhood diseases has raised life expectancy, resulting in a
    >>rise in the incidence of diseases of the elderly, i.e., that "cancer
    >>epidemic" that Anth keeps bringing up.

    >
    >You know, Rich, I'd worry about you if I thought you were being
    >serious with this one.
    >
    >Anth has no sense of humor


    Says David the grump.
     
  15. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 10 Nov 2003 04:28:58 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: The importance of continuing mass polio vaccination (Was Re: My
    >>little boy)
    >>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
    >>Date: 11/9/2003 8:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >>Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>In article <[email protected]>,
    >>Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>No! I've posted more than enough and wasted more than enough time - now you
    >>>post something.
    >>>Anth

    >>
    >>Thanks, Anth, I didn't think you could do it. I appreciate your
    >>confirming my point.

    >
    >That''s a lie, whiich is typical. Anth has done much research and posted much,
    >unlike you, who just calls names and is condescending.


    Indeed. Anth is quite a researcher. But not nearly as accomplished as
    Jan Drew.

    He goes to antivac whacko sites and just repeats whatever is there
    without regard to the truth. Let's see how Anth responds to the fact
    that in 1917 the polio virus had not yet been isolated. This should be
    good.

    Aloha,

    Rich

    >
    >Jan


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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  16. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >From: [email protected]

    > I'm sorry if I'm overtaxing you.


    >I was saying, you are an idiot,
     
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 10 Nov 2003 04:32:18 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:


    >Says David the grump.


    Says Jan who says it is ALWAYS wrong to belittle.
    Says Jan who complains about people calling others names.

    Aloha,

    Rich

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On 10 Nov 2003 04:35:50 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>From: [email protected]

    >
    >> I'm sorry if I'm overtaxing you.

    >
    >>I was saying, you are an idiot,



    Says Jan who says it is ALWAYS wrong to belittle.

    Aloha,

    Rich

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

    The best defense to logic is ignorance.
     
  19. dickinson

    dickinson Guest

    Anth wrote:
    > No! I've posted more than enough and wasted more than enough time -


    Yes mine.

    > now you post something.


    Don't top post.....oh sorry!......I thought you were responding to
    me!........see where top posting gets you?


    > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Anth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Well there's strong correlation with wiping one disease out and
    >>> causing others.

    >>
    >> Oh, really? Let's see a few examples.
    >>
    >> -- 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)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Anth
    >>>
    >>> "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]
    >>>> In <[email protected]>, Anth wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ...and other diseases which leave science scratching their heads
    >>>>> will appear.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you suggesting that they would /not/ appear if we
    >>>> didn't eliminate smallpox, polio, measles, etc?
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>>> "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
    >>>>> completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
    >>>> +--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+
     
Loading...