[Pants-of-dog]

The dates are on the other charts and I conceded to PC and BJ earlier that the vaccines helped to drop the cases (I never denied this, I only ever made claims about the mortality rate). However, in regards to mortality, all the charts agree.

The other charts do not matter in terms of measles.

This is false, the sources are mentioned on most the charts and they all agree anyway.

Here is the combined chart, with all the dates, most of the diseases in question, and the source data given on the chart. Results are the same.



They follow the same projection towards zero deaths irrespective of the vaccine's introduction. Had the vaccine never been introduced, there is no reason to believe that our rates of mortality for the diseases would be much different than they are RIGHT NOW.

Also note that several of these diseases, which follow the same projection trend in decline, never had a vaccine introduced for them.

The other charts do not matter in terms of measles.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The other charts do not matter in terms of measles.

This chart includes measles, includes the vaccine introduction, and references its data sources.

Boom.

You ready to move on yet?

[Pants-of-dog]

This chart includes measles, includes the vaccine introduction, and references its data sources.

Boom.

You ready to move on yet?

The data sources do not seem to support the chart. The chart starts in 1900, but the sources start at 1937.

So where did the chart maker get the information for measles deaths before 1937?

Also:

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

....

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

And

The licensure and widespread use of live measles virus vaccine has led to a decrease of greater than 90 percent in both the incidence of reported measles cases and in reported measles death rates. Since the deaths reported include only those in which measles was listed as the underlying cause of death, the reported rates represent a minimum estimate of deaths in which measles was a significant factor.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... 70.11.1166

[Godstud]

Anti-Vaxxers are fucking morons, with absolutely no understanding of medical science. End of story.

[SolarCross]

Anti-Vaxxers are fucking morons, with absolutely no understanding of medical science. End of story.

In fairness having "absolutely no understanding of medical science" goes for most people, including a number of doctors and including your own good self, the issue isn't intelligence it is trust. Personally I am prepared to trust HMG with manditory medications but I wouldn't trust the DPRK with the same. Calling people morons for being suspicious of forced medical procedures isn't really a trust building excercise either, well perhaps a moron may think so.

[Missus V. Spolia.]

Also:

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

....
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

And

The licensure and widespread use of live measles virus vaccine has led to a decrease of greater than 90 percent in both the incidence of reported measles cases and in reported measles death rates. Since the deaths reported include only those in which measles was listed as the underlying cause of death, the reported rates represent a minimum estimate of deaths in which measles was a significant factor.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/p ... 70.11.1166

who is really going to believe the CDC after it was caught tampering with data?

https://kellybroganmd.com/cdc-youre-fir ... p-exposed/

[Victoribus Spolia]

The data sources do not seem to support the chart. The chart starts in 1900, but the sources start at 1937.

So where did the chart maker get the information for measles deaths before 1937?

It doesn't really matter, the projection chart rate would not change significantly.

The licensure and widespread use of live measles virus vaccine has led to a decrease of greater than 90 percent in both the incidence of reported measles cases and in reported measles death rates. Since the deaths reported include only those in which measles was listed as the underlying cause of death, the reported rates represent a minimum estimate of deaths in which measles was a significant factor.

This rate of decrease has been since the vaccine introduction, so how much of that 90% (90% of which amount? Since they started tracking or since the last year prior to the vaccine introduction?) accounts for the natural non-vaccine rate of decrease in death? That is, by what % did the rate of decrease accelerate? According to the projections, this % of acceleration of was negligible and none of the data your provided contradicts that FACT.

That is, from 1950 until 1999, the rate of decrease did not drastically change at any given time, thus refuting the claim that the vaccination had a contribution of a statistically significant value in regards to ending measles mortalities. Full-Stop.

[Godstud]

@SolarCross Please provide a source proving that the CDC is working against the health interests of Americans and get back to me, otherwise you're making moronic statements, not based in fact. We're not discussing the DPRK, so your argument is simply ridiculous.

@Victoribus Spolia The effects of lack of vaccines is well known to be disease increases. That's simply fact whether you choose to believe it or not.

How stupid do you have to be to think vaccines do not prevent countless deaths of disease?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024226/

[Pants-of-dog]

who is really going to believe the CDC after it was caught tampering with data?

https://kellybroganmd.com/cdc-youre-fir ... p-exposed/

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[Victoribus Spolia]

The effects of lack of vaccines is well known to be disease increases. That's simply fact whether you choose to believe it or not.

How stupid do you have to be to think vaccines do not prevent countless deaths of disease?

When was the Scarlet Fever vaccine introduced and what is the current rate of death for Scarlet fever since its introduction Godstud?

[SolarCross]

Please provide a source proving that the CDC is working against the health interests of Americans and get back to me, otherwise you're making moronic statements, not based in fact. We're not discussing the DPRK, so your argument is simply ridiculous.

Please provide evidence that the CDC is incapable of malfeasence or incompetance.

Dr Mengele will see you now.

[Pants-of-dog]

It doesn't really matter, the projection chart rate would not change significantly.

So you do not think it is important that the chart has no sources?

Sure.

You understand that I am going to dismiss this evidence because it is unsupported, right?

This rate of decrease has been since the vaccine introduction, so how much of that 90% (90% of which amount? Since they started tracking or since the last year prior to the vaccine introduction?) accounts for the natural non-vaccine rate of decrease in death? That is, by what % did the rate of decrease accelerate?

From the very first paragraph of the linked study:

Since its licensure in 1973, the widespread use of measles vaccine has resulted in a greater than 90 percent reduction in reported measles incidence in the United States. Comparable declines have been seen in reported deaths due to measles (Figure 1). Barkin studied death certificate data for measles mortality for a prevaccine period (1958-1963) and during the vaccine era (1965-1970).' 2 Highest measles mortality rates were for children 6-11 months of age in areas with fewer than 10,000 people, and in counties where more than 60 percent of the population had incomes below poverty level. The death-to-case ratio was highest for children who developed measles when less than 1 year of age, lowest in children ages 8-15 years, and rose again in persons over 25 years of age. This report reviews death certificate information recorded by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for the period 1971-75.

So, there were ten times as many measles cases between 1958 and 1963 than there were between 1965 to 1970.

Let us look at the chart you or your wife cited:



Looking at this chart that you consider good evidence, we see that there were between 0.2 and 0.4 deaths per 100 000 people from 1958 to 1963.

From 1965 to 1970, there were between 0.02 and 0.04 deaths per 100 000 people.

So, your own evidence corroborates the claim.

According to the projections, this % of acceleration of was negligible and none of the data your provided contradicts that FACT.


That is, from 1950 until 1999, the rate of decrease did not drastically change at any given time, thus refuting the claim that the vaccination had a contribution of a statistically significant value in regards to ending measles mortalities. Full-Stop.

This is incorrect. Your own chart shows a dramatic decrease in cases and deaths shortly after 1963, when the vaccine was introduced.

You really should read the link. You would get a kick out of the chart at the top of the second page.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So you do not think it is important that the chart has no sources?

Sure.

You understand that I am going to dismiss this evidence because it is unsupported, right?

You didn't even say it had no sources.

You only bitched about lacking a source for the pre 1937 data point and I pointed out that it didn't really matter. feel free to start at 1937 if you wish, it changes nothing.

So, there were ten times as many measles cases between 1958 and 1963 than there were between 1965 to 1970.

Once again, by what % did the vaccine accelerate the overrall rate of existing decline, because it looks like from the projection chart that every decade was seeing a decrease close to 90% already.

The UK drop in measles shows similar projections and they didn't have the first vaccine introduced until 1968 and it was so shitty they had to rework it and reinintroduce it in 1988.



Once again, no one is claiming that vaccines don't decrease measles deaths, what is being claimed is that had the measles vaccine never been introduced, the rate of death we are currently experiencing would not be much different, as the projections clearly demonstrate and your own data does not contradict, but in fact, corroborates.

[Godstud]

Please provide evidence that the CDC is incapable of malfeasence or incompetance.

You're the one making the claim that the state is operating against the people. You fucking pony up with facts, or go back to that bridge you live under. There is no evidence that vaccines are harmful, aside from the minimal side effects that rarely occur.

Dr Mengele will see you now.

You're being asinine and this is not an argument, nor is it evidence to the contrary of what I stated.

When was the Scarlet Fever vaccine introduced and what is the current rate of death for Scarlet fever since its introduction Godstud?

How is this relevant? There is no vaccine for Scarlet Fever. The disease is treatable with antibiotics, which prevent most complications. Outcomes with scarlet fever are typically good if treated.

Are you seriously going to cherry pick one disease and think this is support for your sub-moronic stance on vaccines?

I highly doubt that you do not vaccinate your children, so be realistic about this.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How is this relevant? Are you seriously going to cherry pick one disease and think this is support for your sub-moronic stance on vaccines?

I highly doubt that you do not vaccinate your children, so be fucking realistic about this.

Thats not an argument or a response.

Likewise, if you actually read my arguments, you'd see they are quite nuanced and not merely some anti-vaxx all vaccines are evil bullshit.

How about typhoid then? What about Diptheria? The point is really the same for any of them, so where do you want to start?

If you are not ready for me to embarrass you, perhaps you should go find a different thread to troll.

EDIT:

My first child was fully vaccinated and received a vaccine-related respiratory illness that caused him to be on a respirator and then a nebulizer. That it was vaccine-related was diagnosed by our doctor.

My second child was partially vaccinated until we changed our position on vaccines part way through.

None of our other children are vaccinated or will be vaccinated so long as I can claim exemptions, which I do as legally guaranteed in the state of Pennsylvania.

[SolarCross]

You're the one making the claim that the state is operating against the people. You fucking pony up with facts, or go back to that bridge you live under. There is no evidence that vaccines are harmful, aside from the minimal side effects that rarely occur.

You're being asinine and this is not an argument, nor is it evidence to the contrary of what I stated.

I am not making that claim, but it is within the range of things that can happen and has happened. Forced medical treatments are dubious ethically regardless of utility by other measures, my point is only that being suspicious of that is hardly moronic even if in this instance it turns out to be unwarranted. I'll add to that if you really want to add to the pro-vaccine cause you would be of greater benefit saying nothing at all on the subject given you are incapable of doing more for the cause than moronically resorting to ad hominems for the entirety of your arguement if it even can be called that, its not a good look. Cheerio.

[Pants-of-dog]

You didn't even say it had no sources.

You only bitched about lacking a source for the pre 1937 data point and I pointed out that it didn't really matter. feel free to start at 1937 if you wish, it changes nothing.

I looked at its cited sources. None of its cited sources give any data for the yeears before 1937, which is at least half the graph and almost all of the chart that is legible due to the scale chosen. It would be impossible to distinguish a trend of any sort after 1937 using that graph.

In other words, that graph is useless.

Once again, by what % did the vaccine accelerate the overrall rate of existing decline, because it looks like from the projection chart that every decade was seeing a decrease close to 90% already.

I answered your question about when the 90% happened. I.e. the question that you randomly inserted in parentheses.

If you wanted to say that part of this 90% drop was also attributable to causes other than the vaccine, you may be correct.

That does not change the fact thatnthis dramric drop occurred, disproving your claim.

Even if we assume that the drop that occurred due to hygiene, other medical practices, and nutrition were to continue as per the projected line on your evidence, the line following the death rate after 1963 is still far steeper than that projected line. The differenc ein slope between these two lines would be the result of the vaccine.

However, I am not sure it makes sense to assume that the effects of hygiene, other medical practices, and nutrition would continue to affect the death rate with the same amount of significane all the way to zero mortality.

The UK drop in measles shows similar projections and they didn't have the first vaccine introduced until 1968 and it was so shitty they had to rework it and reinintroduce it in 1988.

This is a new argument.

You previously ignored evidence I presented from Romania because it was not from the US. Now you are entering evidence from another country. While you are being logically inconsistent, I will now also address this new argument.

Please note that your new UK chart also shows a dramatic drop after the vaccine was introduced in 1988.

So, once again, your own evidence supports my point.

Also, you should be giving credit to the actual authors of the work you are citing.

Here:
https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Now, this graph of yours has several problems.

First of all, notification of measles began in England and Wales in 1940. This would be the second time you have presented a chart where the first half seems to be unsourced.

Secondly, the vaccine was introduced in 1968, which was the last time there were more than fifty deaths per year. Most years before that time had deaths in the triple digits. So the vaccine had a significant impact despite the lack of decent coverage and continued episodes of transmission. In 1988, they achieved full vaccine coverage. That was also the last year that measles deaths were in the double digits.

Since then, measles deaths have never been more than ten and have often been zero. Most cases since then involve people with immune deficiency issues.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 40-to-2013

Once again, no one is claiming that vaccines don't decrease measles deaths, what is being claimed is that had the measles vaccine never been introduced, the rate of death we are currently experiencing would not be much different, as the projections clearly demonstrate and your own data does not contradict, but in fact, corroborates.

No, that does not follow. The rate of death would almost certainly be at least ten times higher.

[Drlee]

I stopped reading three pages ago.

and that the claim that they should NOT be permitted on the basis that the unvaccinated are a threat to the lives of millions of Americans is hogwash

No it is not hogwash. Your absurd hyperbole about "lives of millions of Americans" is what is hogwash.

I am simply going to pull rank on you folks on this one. If you think that a significant number of people choosing not to vaccinate would not harm people you are full of shit.

VS; Millions of people WOULD be threatened by unvaccinated people. The key word here is "threat". Threat does not mean everyone dies. Threat means that you are threatened needlessly. You MIGHT die. If you don't die you MIGHT be maimed. If you don't die you MIGHT be made very ill for absolutely no reason at all except some profoundly stupid person chose to believe that they are such a special snowflake that they may presume to threaten their neighbors.

You were wrong about scarlet fever too. It is less of a threat because it is treatable using antibiotics unlike viruses. It is prevented because other Strep A infections are treated. Nevertheless the UK recently had a serious outbreak: A 97% increase in cases in one year. Strep A is a killer in all of its forms. Make no mistake about that.

Only an absolute idiot would not vaccinate his/her kids. Those who do it out of bull-headed political notions of their rights should be jailed. And their kids taken away.

This is an infuriating thread. There is a reason we have epidemiologists and physicians running this game. OBVIOUSLY individuals can't be trusted to do it.

Note to VS. I like your posts and respect your political opinions. You are showing your ass to everyone by googling and pasting "studies" without having a clue how to interpret them. Stop it.

[Godstud]

Only an absolute idiot would not vaccinate his/her kids. Those who do it out of bull-headed political notions of their rights should be jailed. And their kids taken away.

This is an infuriating thread. There is a reason we have epidemiologists and physicians running this game. OBVIOUSLY individuals can't be trusted to do it.

QFT.

I'm done responding to the people who have no idea about medical science or about vaccines in general.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is going to be my last post on this ridiculous thread, I should have left it dead. No one wants to be here, no one is listening to each other (as evidenced by several of the posts above by their own admission), its riddled with ad-homs and insinuations of child-abuse and other nonsense.

Its a dog-bile of butt-hurt do-gooders who can't stand a different perspective on this issue. I'm sorry, but its equally a poisoning-of-the-well to dismiss sources from the critical side (notice i didn't say anti-vaxx) as it is for the mandatory-vaxx critics to dismiss articles published from the CDC. @Sivad and myself have respectfully attempted to conduct debate on here and have often taken the other side's source-material for granted to the sake of debate, but other side has instead engaged in fallacious dismissals of anything we put forward and needless knit-picking.

Interestingly, neither Sivad or myself have proclaimed being anti-vaxx, a fact ignored by the blustering emotionalism of our opponents. We are open-minded people who are merely willing to levy some criticism as many doctors and medical professionals have as well. I never claimed for a connection to autism or anything else, a banning of vaccines, or a dismissal of their usefulness in many applications, I only defended currently legal exemptions in the United States and somehow that makes me a child-abusing psycho. This thread is simply toxic.

I am not going to continue debating on a thread where people openly proclaim that they are "done responding to people who are anti-science" or openly claim "that I stopped reading your arguments a long time ago" while they themselves openly engage in appeals to authority type fallacies.

You know who you are.

The only person who even attempted a constructive discussion on this, which I was enjoying, was @Bulaba Jones.....The rest of you can go pound sand.

@Godstud is just hurling insults, @Drlee is just dismissing the other side's arguments and bragging about ignoring it, and @Pants-of-dog is just being the typical knit-picking pain-in-the-ass he is in EVERY thread which has become his overwhelming reputation....I can hardly count the PMs from other users asking me why I even bother wasting my time with him.

This is not a concession, this is not a white flag, I could go on for ages.

This is a common-sense realization that I am merely wasting my time on here.

In reality, my Anarcho-Capitalism gives me all the reason I need to oppose mandatory-anything, but I, being the accommodating fellow that I am, wished to have a normal conversation under the paradigm of assuming the legitimacy of the modern state. I basically got a big "fuck you VS!!" from everyone on here, so I return the insult with a tip of my hat and will be moving on.

Let me also say, unequivocally, that those who want to claim that I am abusing my children or am a bad father can sincerely and seriously go fuck themselves. I am raising my children legally according to my state's laws and I assure you they are likely more healthy, educated, skilled, and well-adjusted than any kids you have ever likely met and you can take that to the bank.

Not going to cast pearls before swine and all that unless @Bulaba Jones wants to continue our conversation.

Otherwise.....

I'm Out.