From: Peter Parry on
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 18:44:11 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
<pkm(a)> wrote:

>On Jan 2, 1:40�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)> wrote:

>I personally don't rely on these historical quotes to know that
>vaccine is a speculative (at best) medical intervention. The fact
>that vaccine was responsible for 3.5%, at most, of the decline in
>disease-related mortality during most of the last century (ref.
>"Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and R Bonita, pg
>43] means that the vast improvement in the severity of infectious
>disease response occurred *without* vaccine.

There is ample evidence to the contrary, you should read more widely.
Your single quotation, from one page of one of the many books by B&B
you use as a reference, has been taken out of context by a number of
anti-vaccination groups and I note you have also both misquoted and
misused it. What they wrote was -

"Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. McKeown
proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
[he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases. On the
other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance....

The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
of major importance.

The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
greatly by public health and medical care advances. For example,
smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
eradicated, "

In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
many deaths, particularly in infants. Poor nutrition, squalid
conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. In 1831
31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). in 1840 50,000
succumbed to measles and whooping cough. No one doubts that prior to
the start of the second world war social and public health
improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
far greater impact than any other measure.

By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
countries. In the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the best fed
populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
significantly by social or public health measures. The major decline
in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.

The very valid point Beaglehole and Bonita make of course is that
there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
cost. They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole

>Remember, most vaccines
>were not available during most of the 20th century.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from but it is wrong,

>No one can say with any certainty whatsoever whether vaccine was responsible for even
>1% of such declines.

Your figure is meaningless. No one questions that massive
improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
and public health measures. No one doubts that in that time the
effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically.

For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
makes no difference 100%. With vaccination given pre-exposure and
immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. There is no
other effective treatment.

The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. By 1991 it had dropped to
about 3 cases per 100,000. During that time period there was no
significant alteration in standards of living or social health.

In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. By 1998 it was about 5
per 100,000. In the same time there were no significant social

Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
down to 800 because of vaccination. Since then it has increased again
and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
administering it. I wonder if any read Whale?

From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)> wrote

usual allopathic drivel

the smallpox vax is as ludricous as Scopies law

now you know why allopathy is considered a church

From: Happy Oyster on
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:27:19 -0000, "john" <nospam(a)> wrote:

>"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a
>redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic

That is insane bullshit.

Die volle H�rte:
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)> wrote in message
> You really do have to rely upon some remarkable pond life don't you?
> Scheiber is a retired Paleontologist of dubious ability and honesty.
> She is so awful that even a Chiropractor was moved to write "Whether
> it was due to personal bias, lack of relevant health science training,
> or inept research on her part, or a combination, Ms. Scheibner's
> claims have not withstood the test of time, or critical examination,
> and should be rejected"

what chiro was that? let me guess, that pro vaccine pharma shill.

From: john on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)> wrote in message

> Another unqualified self proclaimed "expert" who makes a living from
> her anti-vaccination diatribes. You seem to be attracted to them like
> a moth to a flame. The less they know and the louder they squeal the
> more you believe in them. Really, "listed as having top security
> clearance" - in the American Medical Association library? Even by
> your unique standards of woo do you really think the AMA has a "top
> security clearance" section in its library. Guarded no doubt by armed
> guards and a genetically modified gargoyle?

You mean someone with the brains to see the vaccine hoax and devote her life
to helping its victims, on peanuts, who have been shunned by everyone else, while your lying posterboys like
Offit make 6 million at least! While taking money from vaccine companies.