• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's cute how Prey tries to pretend that his inability to define the Y axis is a failure on our part, and has to quote-mine to do so, and still can't address TomBlvd's chart.
 
Robert Prey said:
Tomblvd said:
I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.

/QUOTE]

Silly me. And here I assumed the Deep Thinkers on this board would actually go the the cited URL and read it. Of course it deals with death rates. That is the heading placed before the graph How astute of you to figure this out.

"Figure 4. The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced."

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/


As far as Polio incidence is concerned, your graph indeed does not go back far enough. But here is a graph that goes back to 1941. You can see that incidence began dropping dramatically before the Salk Vaccine was introduced.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6660[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Tell me, Robert, why is your graph hosted on an Italian website and not on the CDC website?
Click to expand...
 
abaddon said:
Robert Prey said:
Tell me, Robert, why is your graph hosted on an Italian website and not on the CDC website?
Click to expand...

Did you also notice that the time period between the observations (locations where the plot moves up or down) varied considerably and did not line up with the years? Most suspicious is that there are no apparent individual data points between 1953 and 1956. Thus any effect of the vaccine when introduced in 1955 would have to look like a reduction beginning in 1953.

Welcome to lying with statistics, LST101!
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Tomblvd said:
I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.

/QUOTE]

Silly me. And here I assumed the Deep Thinkers on this board would actually go the the cited URL and read it. Of course it deals with death rates. That is the heading placed before the graph How astute of you to figure this out.

"Figure 4. The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced."

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/


As far as Polio incidence is concerned, your graph indeed does not go back far enough. But here is a graph that goes back to 1941. You can see that incidence began dropping dramatically before the Salk Vaccine was introduced.

picture.php
Click to expand...

Robert, you seem to be having trouble with graphs. Earlier you made the statement:

Fact is, at the time of the initial mass vaccinations, Polio, was already in decline due to herd immunity.

And now you post a graph that shows the exact opposite! As anyone can see, there was a terrible outbreak of polio in the mid-fifties. How can something be in decline when the world was in the process of suffering from the worst outbreak ever?
Click to expand...
 
And so we can move on from these graphs, here are a few that go back to near the beginning of the 20th century so you can see what polio rates actually looked like, and what a disaster the outbreak in the 50s really was.

picture.php


picture.php


Makes the argument "polio was in the process of disappearing on its own" look almost comically inept, no?
 
Robert Prey said:
Silly me. And here I assumed the Deep Thinkers on this board would actually go the the cited URL and read it. Of course it deals with death rates. That is the heading placed before the graph How astute of you to figure this out.

"Figure 4. The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced."
Click to expand...

And now that you have acknowledged your graph shows not the infection rate but the death rate of those infected, can you explain how it relates in the least to the subject of vaccination? You do realize vaccination reduces the infection rate, not the death rate of those who are infected - right? :rolleyes:
 
Robrob said:
And now that you have acknowledged your graph shows not the infection rate but the death rate of those infected, can you explain how it relates in the least to the subject of vaccination? You do realize vaccination reduces the infection rate, not the death rate of those who are infected - right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Because.... HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
 
Robert Prey said:
As far as Polio incidence is concerned, your graph indeed does not go back far enough. But here is a graph that goes back to 1941. You can see that incidence began dropping dramatically before the Salk Vaccine was introduced.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6660[/qimg]
Click to expand...
No, there was simply a natural nadir in polio prevalence when the vaccine was introduced and dishonest anti-vaxxers use that to make silly, false claims. Didn't you even notice the pronounced waves and troughs in the graph prior to vaccine introduction?

Herd immunity to polio was never sufficient enough to prevent new cases pre-vaccine so there was never any herd immunity prior to mass vaccination. And you want to bring polio back why?

Este
 
As someone mentioned things like the Iron Lung helped to keep alive victims who would have died.
Another thing that isn't shown in the graph is the thousands and thousands of people paralized and deformed by Polio.
Wards full of children spending years in traction and limb compression to stop muscles twisting.

Here you go,the 'good old days' a ward full of Iron Lungs all fuilled with Polio Victims.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Iron Lungs.jpg

Iron lungs fill a hospital ward in the United States in the 1930s: with 5–10% of polio victims suffering paralysis of the muscles that regulate breathing, wards filled with iron lungs were common. Once admitted to an iron lung, children usualy remained there for the rest of their lives.

Fight against Polio http://www.unspecial.org/UNS698/t81.html
 
Last edited:
Estellea said:
No, there was simply a natural nadir in polio prevalence when the vaccine was introduced and dishonest anti-vaxxers use that to make silly, false claims. Didn't you even notice the pronounced waves and troughs in the graph prior to vaccine introduction?

Herd immunity to polio was never sufficient enough to prevent new cases pre-vaccine so there was never any herd immunity prior to mass vaccination. And you want to bring polio back why?

Este
Click to expand...

Yeah, I want to bring Polio back. Why? Because I like to see people suffer. What a ridiculous comment.
 
Estellea said:
No, there was simply a natural nadir in polio prevalence when the vaccine was introduced and dishonest anti-vaxxers use that to make silly, false claims. Didn't you even notice the pronounced waves and troughs in the graph prior to vaccine introduction?

Herd immunity to polio was never sufficient enough to prevent new cases pre-vaccine so there was never any herd immunity prior to mass vaccination. And you want to bring polio back why?

Este
Click to expand...

The fact is herd immunity is always a factor in any epidemic. To what extent natural herd immunity played in eradicating Polio as versus vaccines? That is an open question. Fact is, there is a whole lot of cooked statistics involved, including the fact that 95% of cases have no symptoms and are therefore not reported and the fact that in 1954 the disease was re-defined to re-classify many of the reported cases as meningitis.

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
Prior to 1954, all that was required was an examination on admittance and another 24 hours later; if the classic polio symptoms were discernible, the patient was considered to have polio. No lab test, and no residual paralysis were required to establish a paralytic polio case definitely. When the new criteria was established in 1954, for a case to be reportable as polio, residual paralysis had to linger for 60 days or longer. From this time onward, all cases in which paralysis lasted less than 60 days would no longer be classified as polio! Overnight, the majority of cases that would have been diagnosed as polio, were now shifted into a new disease category, cocksackie virus, or aseptic viral meningitis."
 
Yeah, I want to bring Polio back. Why? Because I like to see people suffer. What a ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...

Robert, the bit of the post you ignored is the bit you should actually address, its not productive to pick out parts that you want to make silly cooments about that matter.
Didn't you even notice the pronounced waves and troughs in the graph prior to vaccine introduction?
Click to expand...

try again.
 
kookbreaker said:
I swear that must be the third version of that graph I have seen from the anti-vax nutters, and each time they re-make it they make it more obscure. At first the y-axis was labelled 'mortality rates', then it was switch to something more obscure, now its not even labeled as mortality rates, just 'declining percentages', which isn't even a quantity but a change in quantity .

Says volumes.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get. I always figured anti-vaxxers were motivated by fear and ignorance. But when you start out with a certain graph and say "whoa, can't let them see that, it proved vaccines work. Better screw around with it so it implies exactly the opposite of the truth!" How is that any different from mass murder? Is this a group that actually wants children to die?? I find that hard to believe myself, but jeez...
 
Robert Prey said:
The fact is herd immunity is always a factor in any epidemic. To what extent natural herd immunity played in eradicating Polio as versus vaccines? That is an open question. Fact is, there is a whole lot of cooked statistics involved, including the fact that 95% of cases have no symptoms and are therefore not reported and the fact that in 1954 the disease was re-defined to re-classify many of the reported cases as meningitis.

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
Prior to 1954, all that was required was an examination on admittance and another 24 hours later; if the classic polio symptoms were discernible, the patient was considered to have polio. No lab test, and no residual paralysis were required to establish a paralytic polio case definitely. When the new criteria was established in 1954, for a case to be reportable as polio, residual paralysis had to linger for 60 days or longer. From this time onward, all cases in which paralysis lasted less than 60 days would no longer be classified as polio! Overnight, the majority of cases that would have been diagnosed as polio, were now shifted into a new disease category, cocksackie virus, or aseptic viral meningitis."
Click to expand...

A quote without reference? Please cite your source.
 
Straw Man said:
A quote without reference? Please cite your source.
Click to expand...

Apparently, that article does exist - however it is part one of two (and part two is not generally acknowledged on anti-vac sites. A report on both articles is here:

The Dr. Greenberg was questioning the way the statistics were collected, not the effectiveness of the vaccine. A later comment of his:

"I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, saying,
"Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business
to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By being more
cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too
slowly. And that's what I am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are
making this mistake possible. The issue must be pursued."

Translation for Robert - This may not be the best vaccine that we can use so lets not stop looking for a better one, but in the interim Salk's vaccine will do.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
...
Here you go,the 'good old days' a ward full of Iron Lungs all fuilled with Polio Victims.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Images/Iron Lungs.jpg
....
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who swears maybe twice a year, I think I'll burn up my second one to say; Jesus Christ.

Robert Prey said:
Yeah, I want to bring Polio back. Why? Because I like to see people suffer. What a ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what it takes for natural "herd immunity".

Nice job ignoring the entire first paragraph.


Robert Prey said:
The fact is herd immunity is always a factor in any epidemic. To what extent natural herd immunity played in eradicating Polio as versus vaccines? That is an open question. Fact is, there is a whole lot of cooked statistics involved, including the fact that 95% of cases have no symptoms and are therefore not reported and the fact that in 1954 the disease was re-defined to re-classify many of the reported cases as meningitis.

[insert quote here]
Click to expand...
What is it with you and pulling quotes and statistics out of thin air? It's not an open question. Polio dropped off sharply right after vaccines were widely introduced, in a way that can't be explained by "herd immunity".

Stellafane said:
This is what I don't get. I always figured anti-vaxxers were motivated by fear and ignorance. But when you start out with a certain graph and say "whoa, can't let them see that, it proved vaccines work. Better screw around with it so it implies exactly the opposite of the truth!" How is that any different from mass murder? Is this a group that actually wants children to die?? I find that hard to believe myself, but jeez...
Click to expand...

I figure they know that this graph doesn't show what they want, but there must be one that does, somewhere, so making this one look like it is just as good, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom