To vaccinate or not to vaccinate???

You're missing the point of the graphs. The graphs show that there was an obvious progressive decline in the number of deaths throughout the years, and that that trend indicated that the death rate would have continued to decline. It appears that you are of the opinion that without the vaccine, the mortality rate from measles would have jumped. Why would you think that? The trend clearly indicated that the opposite was the case--a steady decline. So, what makes you believe that those things which were having such an impact on mortailty would not have continued to do so? And I can only assume that you used a graph which starts at the year 1954 instead of 1901 for the purpose of hiding the fact that the decline of motality was sure and steady before the introduction of the vaccine. Here, have another look:

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

 

yes

I think that there needs to be push back against the anti-vaccinationists. "Marginalizing" sounds like using strong-arm tactics though, something that I'm not on board with.

Making it clear that vaccines are safe and effective, and that anti-vaccinationist views are not supported by evidence is important.

 

There are several reasons.

Let's look at this graph of child height versus age from 1 to 36 months.



This graph shows a clear trend in human growth from birth. The growth rate is about .44 inches per month.

Over time, we can see then, that if these trends continue, by age 40, the average human will be about 17.6 feet tall.

In other words, a trend line is an imaginary line. Real world data will not necessarily fit a trend line.


Let's look at another graph. This one is for AIDS cases and deaths in the United States from 1981 to 2008




Now, according to your trend lines on disease mortality that you cited earlier, deaths from diseases should have declined during this time period. How is it then that deaths from AIDS could have gone from 0 in 1981 to about 50,000 1995? Shouldn't things like better nutrition, clean water, and better sanitation have prevented such and increase? Shouldn't mortality from disease decline according to your trend line predictions?

Well, the roll of these factors is purely speculative. I think it's plausible that they could have some effect on disease rates, but it is unreasonable to assume both the causes of decline in mortality, and any trend line projection without evidence.

Even if you want to accept your trend line assumptions (which is absurd, because according to the trend lines, there should be negative rates of disease mortality by now), it is still the case that mortality rates from vaccine preventable illness is still higher in the unvaccinated population.

 

I don't argue about a lot of things anymore. There are times when I think someone is wrong about something, and I think I can prove it, but I don't bother arguing, because I don't really care that much. There are some things that I care about, but I still don't argue about them because I don't need the aggravation.

This is different. If enough hysterical, ill informed people are allowed to monopolize public debate about vaccination unchallenged, major outbreaks of diseases that cause death and disability could easily return. In some cases, they already have.

I'm doing my little part to fight against that.

I look at the cases of kids getting vaccine preventable illness, and especially cases of kids getting sick because they were too young to get vaccines, and it makes me really mad.

Starting at 15:39 in this video, and at 46:49 really gets to me.

http://youtu.be/e-PUrDEQn6E

 

Of course you don't . . .

Now, let me get this straight. You’re using the growth trend of children to prove the inaccuracies of a graph showing the steady decline of measles mortality? Really? I think that you really need to think about the utter ridiculousness of that in the context of this discussion. What were you thinking? That had nothing to do with the the question you forgot to answer. I'll repost it for you.

You're missing the point of the graphs. The graphs show that there was an obvious progressive decline in the number of deaths throughout the years, and that that trend indicated that the death rate would have continued to decline. It appears that you are of the opinion that without the vaccine, the mortality rate from measles would have jumped. Why would you think that? The trend clearly indicated that the opposite was the case--a steady decline. So, what makes you believe that those things which were having such an impact on mortailty before the vaccine would not have continued to do so?

 

Yes! Really! You've got it straight! I'm really, really using the growth trend of children to prove the inaccuracies of a graph show the "steady" decline of measles mortality, because in both cases, one could reach false conclusions based on an assumption of what future outcomes might be.

No, I did answer the question. I'll be happy to go over this again though.

1. As demonstrated above, it is not safe to make assumptions about future outcomes based on a graph of previous events

2. It is especially unreasonable to make projections based on a trend line when you don't have a reasonable hypothesis and evidence to support what is driving the trend.



If the graph only showed data beginning in July, we would see that there is a very clear decline in temperature through December. We might conclude that in January of the next year, and forever more, temperature would be zero, yet it is clear that it is not so.

In other words, BASED ON A TREND LINE ALONE, YOU CAN'T MAKE REASONABLE INFERENCES ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE NO CLUE, AND NO EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IS DRIVING THAT TREND.

3. Disease rates are highly variable. There is every reason to believe that if people stop vaccinating, many diseases will make a resurgence, along with the rates of death and disability from those diseases. There are real world cases of this.

4. When you actually look at rates of getting measles, getting disabilities from measles, and dying from measles, they are much much higher among those who are unvaccinated than those who are vaccinated.

5. There is no good reason not to vaccinate.

 

So, you're saying that the trends which are shown in the graphs I've provided concerning the steady decline in the measles mortality rate throughout the decades is somehow negated by the fact that children don't grow to be 17 feet tall, and by the fact that the weather is predictable, yet variable? I see.

Now back to reality. No one has predicted that there will be a steady decline in the measles mortality rate thoughout the decades. There actually was a steady decline. No predicion was necessary; the trend was clear. However, there has never been a trend which would indicate that people would grow to be 17 feet tall. Likewise, there's no trend which would indicate that, since a newborn uinates a quarter cup, and then one cup at one year old, then at fifty years old they will be pissing seven gallons. Your analogies concerning trends is silly.

And you really have no clue as to what was driving the steady decline in measles mortality throughout the decades?

 

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. In other words, a trend on a graph does not necessarily have predictive value, which my analogies illustrate.

No. Not by the fact that weather is predictable, yet variable. By the fact that a trend established by a graph of temperature does not have predictive value.

Yes, the trend is quite clear. The trend of height increase in children is also clear, as is the trend in decrease in temperature from July to December. No prediction was necessary. You just had to record the data to see what the trend was. It turns out that those trends had no or highly inaccurate predictive value. This demonstrates that you can't necessarily make reliable predictions based on trends.

Similarly, if you measured the sales trends of disco records from 1972 to 1978, you might conclude that sales would be at an all-time high, much higher than in 1978 by 1984. You would be wrong however. Disco Stu might agree with you though.

http://youtu.be/L6x-Pvd58CU

Yes there has been. It's the average growth rate of children from 1 to 36 months, which is a rate of about .44 inches per month. Nothing in the trend line indicates that the rate would drop off. Real world observation, however, shows that actual growth rates are very different from what you might predict from a trend line.

Yes there is a trend. That trend proves to have poor predictive value, however.

No. Your conclusions regarding trend lines are silly. The analogies simply illustrate the flaw in your reasoning.

You can speculate about the reasons. Availability of better hospital care, more time off, better nutrition, better housing, improved hygiene, antibiotics and other drugs, etc. They all seem plausible. However, the trend line by itself tells you nothing about the cause unless you can present evidence that a particular cause is responsible.

AND IT GIVES YOU ZERO PREDICTIVE VALUE.

Similarly, you could draw a trend line of a wallstreet bull market. You might assume that an upward trend indicates that stock prices will continue to climb. In princple, stock prices could climb. But they could also decline or level off.


Beyond this, I've already demonstrated, from the graph that you yourself linked to that steep declines in the rate of measles corresponded to the emergence of the measles vaccine.

I've also demonstrated, from the studies that you yourself linked to, that vaccinated people are much, much less likely to get measles than unvaccinated people.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, VACCINES DO WORK. THEY DO PREVENT THE DISEASES THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT

 

If it wasn't improved sanitation, better food, and clean water that caused the decades of decline in measles mortality before the introduction of a vaccine, then what was it. You seem to be suggesting that if no one can prove that these things are responsible, then nothing was responsible. And that's just silly. You're just stomping your feet now.

Also, the trend for human growth is, and has been, a fixed rate. It has always been predictable. You are still attempting to compare human growth process to the decline of a disease, which is easily seen to be a desperate ploy to disprove what a graph clearly shows concerning the steady decline of a disease. The trend, concerning height, cannot even be called a trend; it's a known process demonstrated over and over again. It was silly.

And the graph I provided shows a steady decline of measles mortality from the year 1901, whereas your graph shows the decline from the year 1954. Remember? And I told you that I can only assume that you used that graph to hide the fact that the steady decline had been going on for close to five more decades than your graph showed? The bottom line is that the decline in measle mortality had been steady.

 

We've been arguing about this for a while now. I'm happy to continue arguing about it. We can continue to argue about the specific points of what can and cannot be inferred from a graph, and what effect non-vaccine factors may have on mortality, but let's establish, fundamentally what we are arguing about.

These are my fundamental assertions:

1. VACCINES ARE EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING THE DISEASES THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT

2. THE MEASLES VACCINE, IN PARTICULAR, IS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE MEASLES

Are those two statements true, yes or no?

 

pt1
no he wasnt comparing the human growth rate to the decline of disease. he was comparing a GRAPH on the human growth rate to a GRAPH on measles. and his point was clearly that a GRAPH can be manipulated to support whatever data you want it to. im not gonna even give any examples because you seem to not be able to differentiate the difference between an example and what the example represents.
pt2
true that stock markets and peoples heights have been demonstrated over and over again making your point true. however since measles are pretty much gone there is no up and down patterns...you have vaccines to thank for that lack of pattern.

luckily i didnt have to do any research to make my point here...ok you two can get back to repeating the same shit over and over again now.

 

The example of a human growth chart is ridiculous, as it does not relate in the least to a graph which demonstrates the steady decline of a disease covering decades.

However, you are correct in your assessment that a graph can be manipulated. ezm8's use of a horizontally compressed graph omitting almost five decades of steady decline in the measles mortailty rate would serve as a good example of this. And besides, ezm8’s graph from post #100 concerns cases of measles, not mortality. Even so, I guess you overlooked the spike between 1968 and 1972, and the one between 1975 and 1978 and the one between 1988 and 1990.


The graph in the link below is an honest representation of the decline in measles mortality throughout the decades. Look at the number of deaths per 100,000. Some people's argument boils down to the idea that it's a good thing we did something to nip this steadily declining problem in the bud.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/outbreaks-of-measles-in-vaccinated-children-intensifying/

 

No need to shout.

I thought I've already shown that people with two-dose immunity have not only been traced to the original infection, but that they have also transmitted that measles infection to others who were also shown to have had two-dose "immunization."

Now, why don't you answer the question that I put to you? Specifically: If it wasn't improved sanitation, better food, and clean water that caused the decades of decline in measles mortality before the introduction of a vaccine, then what was it? Are you suggesting that if no one can prove that improved sanitation, better food, cleaner water, and better hygeine are responsible, then nothing was responsible? What was the cause of the effect?

 

That doesn't answer the question.

Here's the question again:

1. VACCINES ARE EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING THE DISEASES THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT

2. THE MEASLES VACCINE, IN PARTICULAR, IS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE MEASLES

Are those two statements true, yes or no?

 

You're stalling . . .

 

That doesn't answer the question.

Here's the question again:

1. VACCINES ARE EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING THE DISEASES THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT

2. THE MEASLES VACCINE, IN PARTICULAR, IS EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE MEASLES

Are those two statements true, yes or no?

 

I've already answered no. 1. And I've already given you examples of double-dose failures of the measles vaccine in both preventing measles and preventing the tranmission of measles to double-dosed people.

Now, explain what caused the decades of steady decline in measles mortality rate. Was it improved sanitation, better hygeine, cleaner water, and better food? Or does it remain a mystery in your mind?

 

No, you haven't answered question number 1.

If what you mean to say is "NO, VACCINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING THE DISEASES THEY ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT"

THEN WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS "NO".

 

Let me put this to you even more precisely, since the question is not "ARE VACCINES 100% EFFECTIVE IN EVERY CASE?", but rather

"DOES GETTING A VACCINATION MAKE YOU LESS LIKELY TO GET THE DISEASE THE VACCINE IS INTENDED TO PREVENT?"

YES OR NO?

 

I'm talking about measles right now. We can look at what the graphs concerning the decline of such things as diptheria in the absence of any vaccine intervention indicate, but first, let's continue on with the issue of the need for measles vaccine. You are hesitant to answer the question concerning what caused the decades-long decline in measles mortality before the introduction of a vaccine. So, are you going to answer that?