[Victoribus Spolia]

IF she was a physician you would not be acting as ignorantly as you are.

I'm sorry, did I say she was a proctologist looking for your head?...My bad, she is actually a gynecologist which also makes her perfectly qualified to deal with you. I suppose the only medical professional I can think of that would not be qualified would be a neurologist for obvious reasons, but no worries.

I'm through messing with the children.

Look, just because the senior center closes in the evening after they serve you the applesauce at which point you need to busy yourself with your recollections of the black plague, that gives you no right to call us all children. I am a legal adult sir and I resent such a characterization of my youth!

Now to the Biz (i'm going to handle the legal-moral perspective of this, while my wife handles the medical-historical end of things).

I. First, Some Qualifiers.

1. I am not a Libertarian, so I am not going to argue merely from individual rights, yet, at the same time, I am not going to argue from a purely collectivist slant. As one who subscribes to the legal concept of the pater familias and for the belief in global Empire, I desire a balance between the rights of the family head with the collective need of a strong imperial cause rooted deeply at the societal level.

2. I am open minded, My first child was fully vaccinated and developed what were obviously, and even diagnosed as, complications from a vaccine. Even after this, we still followed a partial schedule with our second child and after extensive research, we no longer vaccinate.

3. My arguments are going to proceed along several lines as far as parental rights and exemptions: 1. The philosophical objection is legitimate, 2. the religious objection is legitimate, and 3. the physical exemption is legitimate, but is legally stifled, and 4. compulsory vaccinations should not be the case unless the clear cronyism of the system is addressed.

II. The Case For A Philosophical Exemption.

The Philosophical objection is that vaccines, on the whole, are unnecessary and that the end of most of the epidemics that faced the west in the early-to-mid twentieth century are easily explained by public nutrition, sanitation, and sterilization.

Now, the objection to this argument, is that after the vaccines were introduced, there were drops in mortality. This is a fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Just because something occurs after an event, does not mean the preceding event has any causal relationship to it in sequence. Indeed, given the charts that my wife posted above, it appears that the vaccines contributed nominally, if at all, to the declining rates of mortality for these diseases that had been occurring at a drastic levels before their introduction.

Thus, the ball is in the court of the Pro-Vaxxer to prove that the vaccines did actually save lives sufficient to warrant compulsory vaccination for children against the rights of the parents who voice legitimate concerns over their contents.

To Sum: Philosophical exemptions are valid, because the decline in mortality from all of these said diseases occurred most drastically prior to the introduction of the vaccines that allegedly stopped them, did not affect the trends of decline once introduced, and in many cases such diseases ended following the same trends without ever having a vaccination. In light of these facts, parents ought to have the right to decline for their children that which is medically unnecessary, as vaccines certainly are, unless a pro-Vaxxer can prove, against the graphs above, to the contrary.

III. The Case For A Religious Exemption.

It is already a precedent now, in U.S. Law, that religious business ought not to pay for procedures that violate their conscience on religious grounds (Hobby Lobby among others). Indeed, how much more so if such a procedure involved having to ingest, in some manner, the product of that conscience-violating activity in its worst manifestation?

Indeed, the most common and widespread vaccines in the United States are made, in part, and/or may contain either aborted fetal cells or aborted fetal tissues.

If Christians are not obligated to pay for procedures against conscience, then they are not obligated to both pay for such and have such injected into their children by compulsion, that which most defines this objection is seen in the following list:

NOTE:

U.S. approved vaccines from aborted cell lines by Disease, Vaccine Name, Manufacturer, and Cell line:

1. Adenovirus
Barr Labs., Inc
WI-38

2.Chickenpox
Varivax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

3. Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB
Pentacel
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

4. Hepatitis A
Havrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

5. Hepatitis A
Vaqta
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

6. Hepatitis A-B
Twinrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

7. Measles, Mumps, Rubella
MMR II
Merck & Co.
WI-38

8. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox
ProQuad
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

9. Rabies
Imovax
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

10. Shingles
Zostavax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

To Sum: If the rights for the religious hold as upheld in the Supreme Court, parents should not be compelled to force the injection of such into their children.

IV. The Problems With The Invoking of The Medical Exemption.

The vaccine companies themselves have argued that the affect on a given person, including the effectiveness of the vaccine itself, varies from person to person. This is due to factors that could only be called epi-genetic, as both environmental and genetic factors seem to relate to why persons vary in their reactions to vaccines. Children and the elderly are both the most targeted for vaccinations and, ironically, the most likely to have adverse reactions to them, both for typically immunological reasons.

This is all well and good, but the problem is that a medical exemption is not usually granted until damage has been done already by a vaccine and even then the doctor is the final authority as to whether he will count that prior damage, in spite of correlation, as related to the administration of the vaccine itself. Further, there is no validated and widespread system to pre-screen children or seniors as to whether a vaccine would possibly have an adverse reaction in the patient. This essentially making the medical exemption a load of bull-shit.

To Sum: My position, which given my first two points and the data at hand, is this: If something that is already unnecessary and immoral is being prescribed, and it may have adverse effects, and more likely so in children than any other group other than seniors, deferring on vaccinations for this age group is not only reasonable, but the only legitimate and sane choice. To be honest, parents who vaccinate their babies with Hepatitis vaccines immediately following birth, are child abusers in my opinion.

V. The Crony-Capitalist Bullshit Exemption (my personal favorite).

If a parent does not have direct legal recourse against the manufacturer of vaccines in an impartial court of Law for damage claims resulting from that product, then a parent should not be forced to consume the product. PERIOD.

That is, if it were illegal for you to sue an automotive manufacturer for demonstrable damages in a court of law due to, lets say, faulty brakes, you should not be required by law to purchase that automobile against your will.

42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 - Standards of responsibility, provides that vaccine companies cannot be sued directly for damages by U.S. citizens in a court of law. Why? Because the vaccine manufacturer lobbied for this protection due to the fact that volume of justifiable suits for damages would have bankrupted them.

So here is a question for you, if the evidence of vaccine damages could not be demonstrated in a court of law, why would the vaccine manufacturers need to be protected from said litigation?

Here is the actual U.S. Code:

(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section 262 of this title (including regulations issued under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and related to vaccine-related injury or death for which the civil action was brought unless the plaintiff shows—
(A) that the manufacturer engaged in the conduct set forth in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 300aa–23 (d)(2) of this title, or
(B) by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer failed to exercise due care notwithstanding its compliance with such Act and section (and regulations issued under such provisions).
(c) Direct warnings
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.
(d) Construction
The standards of responsibility prescribed by this section are not to be construed as authorizing a person who brought a civil action for damages against a vaccine manufacturer for a vaccine-related injury or death in which damages were denied or which was dismissed with prejudice to bring a new civil action against such manufacturer for such injury or death.
(e) Preemption
No State may establish or enforce a law which prohibits an individual from bringing a civil action against a vaccine manufacturer for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death if such civil action is not barred by this part.

PLEASE NOTE: the graphs provided from my wife in support of the philosophical objection and all evidence as provided for all said objections.....and we're just getting started, this does not even scratch the surface.

[B0ycey]

That is an interestingly sexist remark for a lefty. Besides, this is one of her favorite topics and I will fully admit she is more well read on the topic than I am. Likewise, I would not be so bold to run your mouth, are you sure you want a thorough ass whopping again like I gave you on Contraception thread? Be careful what you wish for.

Whatever VS. You're a meme king. Not only that, you associated a quote you had written to me and strangely believe that nature can be influenced somehow. You may be an interesting poster, but the ass whooping you "think" you can give people is all in your head. Just because you believe you are right doesn't mean you are. Opinion pieces are just that.

As for being a lefty, I don't consider myself such. I might believe in equality but I also believe in a strong economy amongst other things. In my opinion you wife wearing the trousers is fine with me. If she needs to fight your battles what do I care? But I do find it strange that someone who believes a women's place is the world is child rearing also runs behind them in a topic to withstand the "ass whooping" he is likely to receive should be publish his thoughts.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There are some disturbingly stupid posts made in this thread. One poster, without literally endorsing it, has incorporated into their posts the irrational thinking behind the belief that it's merely a coincidence that infection/fatality rates for diseases where their respective vaccines had been mass-distributed dropped, and that "vaccines are unnecessary," along with other insane conspiracy theories.

Posting incredibly stupid things, and then largely getting radio silence from the rest of the forum (besides mockery), is not an indication of vindicating one's fantasy of thinking they're somehow skilled at debates or important or anything else. Knowledge about the workings and function of vaccines is so basic any layman can learn for themselves.

[Victoribus Spolia]

One poster, without literally endorsing it, has incorporated into their posts the irrational thinking behind the belief that it's merely a coincidence that infection/fatality rates for diseases where their respective vaccines had been mass-distributed dropped, and that "vaccines are unnecessary," along with other insane conspiracy theories

Saying that something is stupid and "mocking it" does not mean that the claim is wrong either. If vaccines are what cured these ailments (which is the argument used in justifying their necessity), then the burden if proof is to explain why correlation should imply causation in their case when historical trends reveal contrary evidence.

That there is radio silence on this issue, is not the fault of the statistics, its the fault of the people who claim to oppose them.

To say such opinions are "dangerous," well that begs the question now doesn't it?

[Sivad]

Vaccine anti-science and hearsay evidence have taken a firm hold

John P.A.Ioannidis introduced the notion of "evidence-based hearsay" determining the use of medical treatments. (1)

The "safety of vaccines" can be considered as hearsay as it does not have a proper evidence base. In contrast to scrutiny of medication (pharmacovigilance), proper vaccinevigilance does not exist. Proper and consistent research into long term side-effects from vaccines does not exist. (2)

As a result, do we now have endemics of (chronic) non-communicable disease (NCD) with mortality and morbidity greater than that from vaccine prevented (acute) infectious diseases in the well nourished and hygienic societies? (3)

ideology leads (non-informed) debates on vaccines and not evidence based medicine (EBM).
http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414/rr-6

The arrogance of preventive medicine
David L. Sackett

Preventive medicine displays all 3 elements of arrogance. First, it is aggressively assertive, pursuing symptomless individuals and telling them what they must do to remain healthy. Occasionally invoking the force of law (immunizations, seat belts), it prescribes and proscribes for both individual patients and the general citizenry of every age and stage. Second, preventive medicine is presumptuous, confident that the interventions it espouses will, on average, do more good than harm to those who accept and adhere to them. Finally, preventive medicine is overbearing, attacking those who question the value of its recommendations.
[...]
Experts refuse to learn from history until they make it themselves, and the price for their arrogance is paid by the innocent. Preventive medicine is too important to be led by them.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/4/363


The arrogance of the vaccine policy maker

David L Sackett, a retired Oxford University epidemiologist, is one of the very big cheeses of ‘evidence based medicine’ and a man of obvious independent thought and integrity. Of course, David Sackett is well aware that epidemiology is a very inexact science when it comes to nailing the causes of disease and the real truth behind preventing ill-health and extending life.

Epidemiological studies can only provide hypothesis generating evidence. Andrew Wakefield’s small case series published in the Lancet in 1998 only generated a hypothesis that MMR might be linked to bowel disease and regressive autism in a subset of genetically vulnerable children - a link that science is yet to disprove. However large or well designed, observational studies have a fundamental limitation – they prove absolutely nothing - they simply cannot determine the cause - or provide proof that one event is the cause of another.

In August 2002, David Sackett referred to the preventionists as ‘presumptuous’, aggressively assertive’ and ‘overbearing’ in the way these medical “experts” arrogantly attacked those who questioned the value of their recommendations. [1]

So who are the villains, asks Sackett. Who is to blame for the widespread application of “preventive” interventions that cause “disability and untimely death?” Sackett blames the medical “experts” “who, to gain private profit (from their industry affiliations), to satisfy a narcissistic need for public acclaim or in a misguided attempt to do good, advocate "preventive" manoeuvres that have never been validated in rigorous randomized trials.”
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/ ... licy-maker

[Pants-of-dog]

Why are people incorrectly saying that typhoid has no vaccine? I have a scar on my arm from my typhoid vaccination.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What we should note about that graph of measles deaths in the USA is that the actual data on it stops in 1975. They've drawn a nice straight line implying that the process of fewer deaths would be inevitable, and would have meant almost no deaths at all by 2010 (if you find a readable version, it's marked "4 per 100 million"). But if we look at the data we have, including since 1975 (and why the hell would you post a graph missing the last 40 years of data?), we find:

From 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in reported measles cases occurred. During these 3 years a total of 55,622 cases were reported (18,193 in 1989; 27,786 in 1990; 9,643 in 1991). In addition to the increased number of cases, a change occurred in their age distribution. Prior to the resurgence, school-aged children had accounted for the largest proportion of reported cases. During the resurgence, 45% of all reported cases were in children younger than 5 years of age. In 1990, 48% of patients were in this age group, the first time that the proportion of cases in children younger than 5 years of age exceeded the proportion of cases in 5–19-year-olds (35%).

Overall incidence rates were highest for Hispanics and blacks and lowest for non-Hispanic whites. Among children younger than 5 years of age, the incidence of measles among blacks and Hispanics was four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.

A total of 123 measles-associated deaths were reported during this period (death-to-case ratio of 2.2 per 1,000 cases). Forty-nine percent of deaths were among children younger than 5 years of age. Ninety percent of fatal cases occurred among persons with no history of vaccination. Sixty-four deaths were reported in 1990, the largest annual number of deaths from measles since 1971.

The most important cause of the measles resurgence of 1989–1991 was low vaccination coverage. Measles vaccine coverage was low in many cities, including some that experienced large outbreaks among preschool-aged children throughout the early to mid-1980s. Surveys in areas experiencing outbreaks among preschool-aged children indicated that as few as 50% of children had been vaccinated against measles by their second birthday, and that black and Hispanic children were less likely to be age-appropriately vaccinated than were white children.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

The number of cases of measles before the introduction of the vaccine was fairly steady. Death is no the only 'complication' possible for measles - see the CDC page for more. The assumption that the improvements in survival would continue indefinitely is unwarranted - it may have been due to antibiotic improvements (pneumonia is the complication most associated with a death), but there are limits to how quickly or well such infections can be treated. Even if there would be fewer deaths these days if there were no program to get herd immunity, the complications are still worth avoiding.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why are people incorrectly saying that typhoid has no vaccine? I have a scar on my arm from my typhoid vaccination.

No one said that there wasn't, only that there was no widespread vaccination campaign during the primary years of Typhoid decline as it pertained to mortality rates.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Prosthetic Conscience,

You do realize that your second chart is a HUGE zoom-in on the first chart right?

The first chart shows the cases in hundreds of thousands, the vaccine was introduced after it had already dropped from a height of close to one million down to 300,000 cases over ten years! with no vaccine! Indeed, the rate of drop actually decreased after the vaccine introduction.

in your first chart, the spike you mention occurs, but only represents a spike of 30,000 cases and barely appears as a bump in this first chart that measures cases by the hundreds of thousands. The only way to therefore make it look serious when the trend virtually flatlined is to zoom on that pimple and measure only by thousands.

Thus, as was pointed out in the other charts, the decline in measles was most significant prior to the introduction of the vaccines, and bottomed out in a manner consistent with pre-vaccine trends. This indicating that the vaccine did not contribute much to the overall trend in declining mortality thus showing that it was, emphatically, not the vaccine that can be attributed to the end of this disease as a serious issue.

That being the case, to assume that lower-rates of vaccination were the culprit in the resurgence of measles around 1990 begs the question, for it assumes that vaccinations were the cause of low measles-rates in the first place which was already disproven by the actual trends in the twentieth century.

So, just as another explanation must account for the decline in measles overall, it is also likely that another explanation obtains in the case of the VERY small resurgence of Measles in the 1990s. Given that this occurred in very poor and often unsanitary inner city areas, the same issues that were often at play in such diseases in past may very well explain the resurgence here (sanitation, nutrition, etc.).

Once again, to assume causation when you cannot even establish a consistent correlation is both fallacious and perpetuates myth.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one said that there wasn't, only that there was no widespread vaccination campaign during the primary years of Typhoid decline as it pertained to mortality rates.

The fact that water sanitation and antibiotics help does not mean that vaccines are not useful when, for example, travelling to India.

Also, when you write “no vaccine”, most people think you mean there is no vaccine.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Also, when you write “no vaccine”, most people think you mean there is no vaccine.

Typhoid Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.


Context is important you can see what I mean, and it is just as I told you.

The fact that water sanitation and antibiotics help does not mean that vaccines are not useful when, for example, travelling to India.

That may very well be fair, but we are talking about compulsory vaccinations for children in the first world. The historic trends shows them to be unnecessary, there are legitimate medical concerns, litigation is forbidden for claimed damages (which is bull-shit), and the vaccines contain ingredients such as aborted fetal tissue that violates the conscience of the largest single religious demographic remaining in the west.

I am pretty sure these are good reasons that such should not be compulsory. Thats all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Typhoid Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.


Context is important you can see what I mean, and it is just as I told you.

That may very well be fair, but we are talking about compulsory vaccinations for children in the first world. The historic trends shows them to be unnecessary, there are legitimate medical concerns, litigation is forbidden for claimed damages (which is bull-shit), and the vaccines contain ingredients such as aborted fetal tissue that violates the conscience of the largest single religious demographic remaining in the west.

I am pretty sure these are good reasons that such should not be compulsory. Thats all.

Typhoid vaccines are not compulsory in Alberta, where I live, or in Quebec where I used to live. This makes sense considering the fact that we have functioning water sanitation systems.

So why are you discussing typhoid if you are discussing compulsory vaccinations?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Prosthetic Conscience,

You do realize that your second chart is a HUGE zoom-in on the first chart right?

Yes. It's actual data, rather than a 40 year blank.

The first chart shows the cases in hundreds of thousands, the vaccine was introduced after it had already dropped from a height of close to one million down to 300,000 cases over ten years!

No, before the vaccine, as the chart shows, there were between 300,000 and 800,000 cases each year. The cases in 1950 were about the same as when the vaccine was introduced.

Indeed, the rate of drop actually decreased after the vaccine introduction.

No, it didn't.

in your first chart, the spike you mention occurs, but only represents a spike of 30,000 cases.

"Only" 30,000 cases? That's still nasty for those infected. It's also costly:

Nevertheless, a resurgence of measles occurred during 1989–1991, again demonstrating the serious medical burden of the disease. More than 55,000 cases, 123 deaths, and 11,000 hospitalizations were reported [7]. Two major causes of this epidemic were vaccine failure among a small percentage of school-aged children who had received 1 dose of measles vaccine and low measles vaccine coverage among preschool-aged children.

The measles resurgence also demonstrated the high financial cost of measles in a developed country. Mason et al. [8]. found that the average expense for a measles hospitalization at Los Angeles Children's Hospital during the resurgence was $9264 [8]. Hatziandreu et al. [9].estimated that the average cost (direct and indirect) of a measles case in 1994 was $1000. The same study estimated total annual costs of measles in the absence of a vaccination program of $3.8 billion with 1859 deaths. The United States spends ∼$45 million annually for the measles component of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, to avoid this burden [9].

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/18 ... /S1/820569

So, just as another explanation must account for the decline in measles overall

Measles did not decline before the vaccine; just the deaths from it did. Both graphs show that. The decline in deaths can be put down to better care (eg antibiotics to fight pneumonia that measles patients are suspectible to).

it is also likely that another explanation obtains in the case of the VERY small resurgence of Measles in the 1990s. Given that this occurred in very poor and often unsanitary inner city areas, the same issues that were often at play in such diseases in past may very well explain the resurgence here (sanitation, nutrition, etc.).

Once again, to assume causation when you cannot even establish a consistent correlation is both fallacious and perpetuates myth.

Hand-waving bullshit. You are the one assuming causation; the studies have showed, by examining the populations that did get measles, and their ages, that it was lack of vaccine, or an inadequate vaccination with just one injection rather than two. You're just shutting your eyes and not reading the reports, in favour of making up your own claims without evidence. There was not a sudden improvement in sanitation and nutrition that made the resurgent measles cases go away; there was, however, a renewed push for complete vaccination coverage. And it worked.

At the end of the day, you're spouting pesudo-science, and ignoring the real science. I hope that if your wife exists, and does have some involvement in medicine, she's a bit ashamed of being associated with you.

[Drlee]

VS and spouse posts are the work of a cut and paste amateur. I am not buying the gynecologist nonsense. A doctor would not have made so disjointed a post. But to go further. Few MD's have much more expertise in this matter than do a well educated amateur. Indeed, they are the first to simply buy the published data, take their CEUs and move on. The study of vaccinations and their effectiveness falls to epidemiologists who have a completely different skill set.

Notice the following absurdly amateur comment from a self-proclaimed expert:

T

he U.S. spends by far the most on health care, is by far the sickest country, implements the most vaccines, and

The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the other 27 wealthy countries,

So "doctor". The US is NOT "by far the sickest country". The very idea is laughable.

"27 wealthy countries" More nonsense. I can see someone has been reading the absurd "Miller Goldman" paper. Now completely discredited. By the way, an epidemiologist would consider reporting methods which are not the same among all of these nations and the US has one of the most strict; applying an "any size, any sign of life" requirement for reporting neonatal deaths.

implements the most vaccines,

Aaaaaaahhhhhh. Not exactly. Read credible data and get off of the anti-vaxer sites. By the way, a "doctor" would be interested is vaccine groupings. Count vaccines in Germany for example and see where you are on this claim. But again. Correlation is not causation.

Finally:

The U.S. spends by far the most on health care,

Yes it does. And in the process offers terrible return on its investment. You will get no argument about this from me. These terrible outcomes have nothing to do with vaccination rates nor some supposed correlation between vaccination and infant mortality. Now infant mortality and lack of access to care is another thing altogether. And infant mortality is directly associated with the income of the parents. And.....

A "doctor" would not be so naive as to suggest that all Americans get the same level of care. There are factors at work here that this "doctor" one is completely ignoring.

Look at the OECD nations. The US and Mexico are the only two that do not provide some sort of universal health care.

Look at the 25 wealthiest countries. The US is the only one that does not provide government mandated universal health care.

And I would also mention, because to epidemiologists it is the proverbial elephant in the cornor, over 20% of Americans live in rural areas that have diminished access to what health care we do have, higher reliance on government programs for health care, much lower propensity to seek care. (The shear problem of getting to routine health care is worth considering.) This is a problem that does not exist in any comparable way in most wealthy nations.

So I am absolutely certain from her post that VS and wife (since he says he bows to her on medical matters) would join me in calling for universal health care. And because she bemoans the cost of US care, a single payer system similar to the NHS would do nicely.

Now please stop wasting our time with the pseudo-scientific claptrap.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes. It's actual data, rather than a 40 year blank

The charts that MVS provided were relevant as they addressed 19th century trends in relation to vaccine introduction, data through 1975 is perfect sufficiently for the demonstration of the point. Later data does not show anything different regarding the trends including your own charts that you provided.

Measles did not decline before the vaccine; just the deaths from it did. Both graphs show that. The decline in deaths can be put down to better care (eg antibiotics to fight pneumonia that measles patients are suspectible to).

Yes it did, the charts you presented are cases not mortalities, the charts my wife provided were mortalities, both charts show the same general plot-line in downward trends. This is the case with all of the infectious diseases under discussion including epidemics that no vaccine was ever produced for.

At the end of the day, you're spouting pesudo-science, and ignoring the real science. I hope that if your wife exists, and does have some involvement in medicine, she's a bit ashamed of being associated with you.

This is a vacuous claim and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Charts have been provided for several different diseases and they all show the same thing: substantial decline prior to vaccine introduction, or decline and eradication even without vaccinations ever being introduced. To then postulate, contrary to these findings, using the crappy evidence you cited, the opposite, is entirely unjustified.

The measles example you provide is not enough to disprove the overall pre-vaccine trends for all of the diseases cited, and assumes that which is yet to be proven by you and the people like you who are on here advocating on the basis of such inaccurate assumptions that people's children ought to be forced to be vaccinated. The forfeiture of parental rights based on claims that wholly lack evidence is both reckless and wicked.

Evidence has been provided for the claims on a large scale, your evidence is subject to substantial critique and cannot carry the burden on what you are trying to make it prove. That sir, is the only psuedoscience in this thread.

I am not buying the gynecologist nonsense.

Well you shouldn't, as it was a fucking joke

You didn't get that from the whole she is a proctologist looking for your head bit. That is hilarious.

Your even addressing her as doctor now. LMAO.

So I am absolutely certain from her post that VS and wife

You have not addressed the argument she made regarding trends.

Likewise, what if we were pro-universal healthcare? That would still be irrelevant to the topic at hand. I actually do hold to a form of universal healthcare, but vaccines and that issue are two seperate matters. I suppose you think you are dealing with some libertarian crank and his tea-party wife. You are gravely mistaken. Even then, it still would not refute the need for viable exemptions as argued by me, which ought to be addressed point-by-point as this thread is supposed to be about parental rights.

[Drlee]

Even then, it still would not refute the need for viable exemptions as argued by me, which ought to be addressed point-by-point as this thread is supposed to be about parental rights.

Nonsense. I am not your trained monkey. You are the one who cherry picked Google listings and expect me to refute them. The work has already been done.

In fact. At least one of your citations was a deliberate misrepresentation of the conclusions of the report. More likely the result of confirmation bias or just "reading until I find a quote".

So if you have proof to offer, do it.

Likewise, what if we were pro-universal healthcare?

Well we would not be on the subject if you had not brought it up.

I suppose you think you are dealing with some libertarian crank and his tea-party wife. You are gravely mistaken.

I do. I am equally sure you will deny it. As for the gravity of my "mistake"....."gravely"?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The charts that MVS provided were relevant as they addressed 19th century trends in relation to vaccine introduction, data through 1975 is perfect sufficiently for the demonstration of the point. Later data does not show anything different regarding the trends including your own charts that you provided.

They show that the death rate was far below what the extrapolation from pre-vaccine data would have predicted (the 'MVS' graph shows the start of that). This shows the vaccines did save lives, even if you buy the extrapolation that says deaths from measles would be rare by now.

Measles did not decline before the vaccine; just the deaths from it did. Both graphs show that. The decline in deaths can be put down to better care (eg antibiotics to fight pneumonia that measles patients are suspectible to).

Yes it did, the charts you presented are cases not mortalities, the charts my wife provided were mortalities

The MVS chart has lines for both cases and mortality. The cases are at the top, and the line is level, with a fair amount of noise, until the widespread use of the vaccine, when they drop dramatically.

At the end of the day, you're spouting pesudo-science, and ignoring the real science. I hope that if your wife exists, and does have some involvement in medicine, she's a bit ashamed of being associated with you.

This is a vacuous claim and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Charts have been provided for several different diseases and they all show the same thing: substantial decline prior to vaccine introduction, or decline and eradication even without vaccinations ever being introduced. To then postulate, contrary to these findings, using the crappy evidence you cited, the opposite, is entirely unjustified.

The only human disease to have been eradicated is smallpox, through a worldwide vaccination campaign. Polio is almost there - again, from a vaccination campaign. What the charts show are declines in deaths.

Scientific opinion is clear; vaccination works. Stating this, and pointing out your idea that it's just sanitation or nutrition, is not "shifting the burden of proof"; the peer-reviewed papers have shown how vaccines have succeeded already. It's up to you to prove otherwise; just saying "oh, it's those dirty poor people" doesn't cut it (scientific or morally).

[Victoribus Spolia]

Nonsense. I am not your trained monkey. You are the one who cherry picked Google listings and expect me to refute them. The work has already been done.

This an assertion, not an argument.

So if you have proof to offer, do it.

This has been done, but you just claimed that because your not a trained monkey you won't be interacting with it, so whats the point of providing more evidence and charts that will you will outright refuse to interact with?

Well we would not be on the subject if you had not brought it up.

What are you talking about? You are the one whole who brought up universal healthcare, not us.

I do. I am equally sure you will deny it.

Thats a pretty dumb thing to say, my political views are pretty clear from my profile and my posting history. I am emphatically not a libertarian. Your pompous presumption and miscalculation are noted.

This shows the vaccines did save lives, even if you buy the extrapolation that says deaths from measles would be rare by now.

This is emphatically not true.



The plot projection shows no real effect for such in England and Wales and the same plot can be applied, very closely, to the United States. The plot projection for the decline show NO effect from the introduction of vaccines. None. Likewise, notice this chart for measles cases in Canada, A projection line for cases would follow, pretty closely, the projection line for measles deaths, so your attempt to split the two seems a bit arbitrary. Both measles cases and measles deaths declined (which should be expected) followed similar projections

Scientific opinion is clear; vaccination works. Stating this, and pointing out your idea that it's just sanitation or nutrition, is not "shifting the burden of proof"; the peer-reviewed papers have shown how vaccines have succeeded already. It's up to you to prove otherwise; just saying "oh, it's those dirty poor people" doesn't cut it (scientific or morally).

This is not an argument and an "appeal to authority" fallacy being used to justify a previous Post Hoc fallacy doesn't strengthen your position, it just compounds your error. Likewise, arguing for a scientific consensus as if it guaranteed an automatic right to dogmatization is foolish. Under that criteria no one would have moved passed blood-letting and geo-centrism. The anti-vaxx movement, and the doctors and researchers that support it, is growing internationally. We'll see what the consensus will be in fifty years. You may find yourself on the outside.

Also the "those dirty people" characterization, is also a fallacy: The Straw man, are you going for a high score or something?

The only human disease to have been eradicated is smallpox, through a worldwide vaccination campaign. Polio is almost there - again, from a vaccination campaign. What the charts show are declines in deaths.

Don't be trite, your know what I meant.

Besides, what is your opinion of Scarlet Fever? and Typhoid? The vaccines?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

We'll just put this up again, for the effect VS claims wasn't there:

The same study estimated total annual costs of measles in the absence of a vaccination program of $3.8 billion with 1859 deaths.

That's 1859 deaths avoided, which VS calls "NO effect from the introduction of vaccines".

[Drlee]

This has been done, but you just claimed that because your not a trained monkey you won't be interacting with it, so whats the point of providing more evidence and charts that will you will outright refuse to interact with?

Garbage. You offered no proof. Just cherry picked google bits that you obviously do not understand.