"The Republicans’ war on science and reason"

[kookbreaker]

Not at all. The fact that epidemics eventually fade with or without vaccines merely calls into question some of the extravagant claims made for vaccines.

Fading means incidences drop, but rarely go away completely. Then outbreaks kick in again often in short order. If you looked at the full graph of Polio cases you would see this pattern over and over. Vaccines broke that pattern by eliminating the disease.

Where vaccines have been shunned, outbreaks have often happened.

Claiming that the decline of a disease due to the epidemic running its course is some kind of evidence against vaccines is one of the most pathetic grasping at straws I have seen.

 

[BenBurch]

And as the attached graph shows, polio cases were surging upwards at the time the vaccine was introduced.

Source; http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html

 

[Tomtomkent]

My objection is only to one-sided brainwash, and it's based not on religion, but on common sense and a well founded distrust of Authority.

So you automatically assume any authorative voice to be wrong?

Hmmmm.


Shame you don't let evidence or facts change that (un)common sense of yours.

 

[Robert Prey]

And as the attached graph shows, polio cases were surging upwards at the time the vaccine was introduced.

Source; http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html

Actually, no.

 

[Robert Prey]

Vaccine Causes Poliio

Fading means incidences drop, but rarely go away completely. Then outbreaks kick in again often in short order. If you looked at the full graph of Polio cases you would see this pattern over and over. Vaccines broke that pattern by eliminating the disease.

Where vaccines have been shunned, outbreaks have often happened.

Claiming that the decline of a disease due to the epidemic running its course is some kind of evidence against vaccines is one of the most pathetic grasping at straws I have seen.

New outbreaks of Polio are often caused by the introduction of the vaccine.

August 14, 2009 2:07 PM

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria
By CBSNews

(AP) " Polio, the dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/14/health/main5242168.shtml

 

[leftysergeant]

Actually, no.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ed8ae0c5ee55.jpg[/qimg]

Okay, the death rate was declining. What about the infection rate? Let me think. What else could have been going on during those periods of decline? Medical science was improving. That has to have something to do with it, dontcha think?

Wasn't penicillin discovered somewhere close to this time, as well? Kind of cuts down on things like pneumonia and various ionfections that enter through the bedsores that many immobile invalids suffer if they do not have proper care.

Morbidity rates do not totally define the severity of a problem. Sometimes they just reflect on how well we respond to the problem.

Now, let's look at the rebound in mortality rates around the start of WWII. Can we safely assumme that part of the reason for this is the diversion of some of the medical resources needed to keep polio vitims alive were diverted to the war effort? (Pandemic stress and increased world travel by Americans, especially merchant marine and military are known to cause some anomolies in disease statistics.)

Even with a decline in morbidity, the cost to society of a polio outbreak does not automaticly decrease. The cost of more productive treatments may spare more lives, but not reduce the financial impact. On the whole, it is far better for a society to prevent outbreaks than to just treat the victims.

Your offspring wanderiong about un-vaccinated may very well be costing us an awful lot of money farther down the line.

 

[leftysergeant]

" Polio, the dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it."

Again, I would state that the better solution is not to vaccinate, but, rather, to increase government oversight and regulation on pharmaceutical companies to make sure that they are not dumping defective product on the Third World and turning a priofit on what we would discard as garbage here.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Robert,

I think we can safely say that no disease has ever appeared on the planet that either killed every human or every creature that was a common ancestor to humans.

I find that interesting, since viruses and other pathogens do not, by their nature, have a limiting mechanism that would stop their virulence just short of eliminating a population on which they were dependent.

With humans existing in isolated pockets, something as virulent as ebola is limited by its very virulence - its hard to spread globally when you've killed the entire subpopulation where you're "making good".

But in this age of air transportation, I do worry about a doomsday bug. It would likely emerge from some existing pathogen, rather than out of whole cloth.

We must, 100%, beat down each and every pathogen we come across every chance we get. Anti-vaxers like yourself, with your cherry-picking and anti-authoritarian views, could be just the ticket to a resurgence in diseases we thought were "down for the count", any one of which could mutate into a species-ending disaster.

I hope I'm not overstating my position, but I think this is part of the reason that many here are so down on you and what you represent.

 

[excaza]

Not at all. The fact that epidemics eventually fade with or without vaccines merely calls into question some of the extravagant claims made for vaccines.

Not even remotely. The point of vaccines is to prevent epidemics from running their course in the first place. I would rather not go back to a time where 30+ percent of the population dies just because a group of idiotic wing nuts disagree with something they are too ignorant to understand.

 

[Upchurch]

Although I'm fairly certain that this particular instance isn't typical, here we have a Republican with yet another anti-science belief.

Just tying it back to the topic, FWIW.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Although I'm fairly certain that this particular instance isn't typical, here we have a Republican with yet another anti-science belief.

As a counterpoint...

...I'm a Republican and very much pro-science.

And there are more than a few anti-science Dems out there.

We have to try to avoid stereotyping.

 

[Cleon]

New outbreaks of Polio are often caused by the introduction of the vaccine.

August 14, 2009 2:07 PM

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria
By CBSNews

(AP) " Polio, the dreaded paralyzing disease stamped out in the industrialized world, is spreading in Nigeria. And health officials say in some cases, it's caused by the vaccine used to fight it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/14/health/main5242168.shtml

From the article you posted - which again, you apparently didn't bother to read:

Nigeria and most other poor nations use an oral polio vaccine because it's cheaper, easier, and protects entire communities.

But it is made from a live polio virus - albeit weakened - which carries a small risk of causing polio for every million or so doses given. In even rarer instances, the virus in the vaccine can mutate into a deadlier version that ignites new outbreaks.

The vaccine used in the United States and other Western nations is given in shots, which use a killed virus that cannot cause polio.

There aren't a lot of people in iron lungs these days, Robert. Pretending that the vaccine had nothing to do with that is just ignoring reality.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, no.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ed8ae0c5ee55.jpg[/qimg]

That's a lie. You fell for it.

You might have made something of yourself if you had decided to get educated.

 

[Cleon]

As a counterpoint...

...I'm a Republican and very much pro-science.

And there are more than a few anti-science Dems out there.

We have to try to avoid stereotyping.

Sure, there are anti-science people everywhere. But the anti-science Democrats aren't running the party on that basis. Anti-science themes don't come up at Democratic debates. Democratic candidates don't trumpet how hostile they are to science as part of their campaign.

As evidence, I'd like to point out that the only Republican presidential candidate to clearly state that he accepts scientific findings on evolution and global warming is polling at less than 2%.

Avoiding stereotypying is one thing, but let's not pretend there's an equivalence, here.

 

[BenBurch]

...

What else could have been going on during those periods of decline?

...

This;

 

[kookbreaker]

I just knew that RP would go running for that death rate graph once Ben posted the infection rate. I was tempted to post a bet that he would do so. Its the classic anti-vax knee-jerk reaction "This graphic is going down! Perfect! That means Polio was going away!"

Lefty already beat me to the explanation, but it is sickening that the anti-vax crowd thinks that death is the only problems caused by diseases.

Its like whale.to made a bot.

 

[excaza]

We have to try to avoid stereotyping.

It's hard to avoid stereotyping when resistance to science is used as a campaign point at the national level.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As evidence, I'd like to point out that the only Republican presidential candidate to clearly state that he accepts scientific findings on evolution and global warming is polling at less than 2%.

Why are we dismissing Newt - he's very science minded.

"Where did you get your passion for science?

It started as a passion for animals and grew into an interest in paleontology and how life evolved. I began to realize how much science and technology change everything around us. The pure beauty of the natural world and the intellectual elegance of understanding how things work, combined with the power of science and technology to dramatically expand our opportunities, has kept me enthralled."

Complete interview:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/discover-interview-newt-gingrich

 

[Cleon]

Why are we dismissing Newt - he's very science minded.

Except when it comes to science he finds ideologically inconvenient, like global warming.

ETA: Gingrich probably does believe in evolution, global warming, and the rest. The fact that he's so hesitant to address the subjects kinda underscores my point. Coming out as pro-science will cost him votes in the primary.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Except when it comes to science he finds ideologically inconvenient...

Can I coin this the "No True Science Buff Fallacy"?