For those that do vaccinate, or at least have researched it better than I have.

[jeebee]

I really REALLY am not wanting to start a debate here. Simply state your opinion if you know the real facts/ research, but please please no arguments. I have seen this graph around a few friends' pages. I do vaccinate, because I believe it works (and honestly have not researched it enough to know for sure the facts, please don't shoot me), but then I see things like this and wonder. But then I also wonder if it is crap and somebody has manipulated the figures to make this graph seem believable. So, does anybody know the truth to this??

[happysmileylady]

Well, I have never taken statistics so I can't really comment on manipulation of statistics. But, I notice that the graph is specifically for the US, not "Humanity," that the graph is specifically for deaths and doesn't make any note of complications of said diseases, and I notice that polio is not on the graph at all. That kinda makes me think that whoever created it is just picking and choosing what they want to demonstrate with it.

[mcpforever]

Jennifer has discussed this particular (and maybe Janine) graph a good bit. The takeaway is that this graph only addresses MORTALITY rates as opposed to the actual rate of disease. So, if your argument is that vaccines don't work to prevent the spread of disease, then the graph is useless as it doesn't show the actual disease rate.

There isn't even a vaccine for scarlett fever in use now, because it gets treated with antibiotics.

Typhoid is not a vaccine given in the US either. Good sanitation practices lead to it being discontinued and now only recommended when visiting a third world nation.

Measles is a virus and can't be treated with antibiotics, so why it's even on the list is a mystery.

[jessicalev8]

http://theatlasoflife.com/2010/06/08...ation-dangers/

Not sure if this will be taken as a credible source but it's got graphs from other parts of the world as well. I did a google search and I can't find any pro-vax sites with a good explaination for these graphs - maybe someone can point me in the right direction?

[isaacsmum]

This blogger addresses those graphs directly (with references, which is why I like it):
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...ts-most-naked/

As PP stated, it's not at all surprising that *mortality* would be on the decline before vaccines. The improvements in sanitation, antibiotics, etc play a big role in keeping really ill people from dying. Vaccines keep you from getting the illness in the first place. If you want to see the role vaccines have played in improving quality of life, take a look at the incidence graphs for the diseases we vaccinate for. I'm sure I can dig up some links if you're interested in that.

ETA: This study give changes in number of cases before and after vaccines, but not with pretty graphs that I'd like to find:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=209448

[chandni3]

Originally Posted by jessicalev8 http://theatlasoflife.com/2010/06/08...ation-dangers/ Not sure if this will be taken as a credible source but it's got graphs from other parts of the world as well. I did a google search and I can't find any pro-vax sites with a good explaination for these graphs - maybe someone can point me in the right direction?

For the death rate graphs, because of better ways to treat these diseases the number of people dying from them didn't decrease until vaccinations. If you look at a graph showing incidence rates you'll see the incidence rates decline with the introduction of vaccinations. The grapes for the other countries only show a small time scale. Most disease have peak and low periods (as after an epidemic many child are now immune and so there isn't another outbreak until a new group of children who haven't been vaccinated grows large enough). If they showed a longer period of time you'd probably see lots of peaks an valleys.
As for the co-relation graphs, co-relation doesn't prove anything. There could be so many other factors in play, including the fact the most people who don't vax also eat a lot healthier and avoid other medicines and most likely breastfeed and thus the co-relation could be due to that. For instance, there is a co-relation between breastfeeding and lower SIDS rates, does that mean formula causes SIDS?
Also, vaccinations aren't effective in everyone so the graphs showing more vaccinated children getting the disease, you can't really compare. Vaccinations work that by having the majority of the population vaccinated, these diseases won't be spreading. There will always be a percentage of vaccinated people who get the disease but all unvaccinated children have no immunity.

[mcpforever]

Originally Posted by jessicalev8 http://theatlasoflife.com/2010/06/08...ation-dangers/ Not sure if this will be taken as a credible source but it's got graphs from other parts of the world as well. I did a google search and I can't find any pro-vax sites with a good explaination for these graphs - maybe someone can point me in the right direction?

When the creator of the graphs in the above link can take this graph


and make it look like this,


I can't believe any of the rest of what is on that page as representing a true picture of how effective vaccines are.

[songbird516]

Originally Posted by mcpforever Jennifer has discussed this particular (and maybe Janine) graph a good bit. The takeaway is that this graph only addresses MORTALITY rates as opposed to the actual rate of disease. So, if your argument is that vaccines don't work to prevent the spread of disease, then the graph is useless as it doesn't show the actual disease rate. There isn't even a vaccine for scarlett fever in use now, because it gets treated with antibiotics. Typhoid is not a vaccine given in the US either. Good sanitation practices lead to it being discontinued and now only recommended when visiting a third world nation. Measles is a virus and can't be treated with antibiotics, so why it's even on the list is a mystery.

I'm guessing that measles is on the graph because there is a vaccine for it?

Also, mos vaccine advocates also focus on deaths from disease, not necessarily the spread of it, so I understand why mortality would be on this graph. Many times diseases are not accurately diagnosed and reported accurately unless someone dies, really.

ETA. and personally, I'm not worried about my children getting a disease. I'm much more concerned about them dyeing or suffering life-long consequences from it.

[mcpforever]

Originally Posted by songbird516 I'm guessing that measles is on the graph because there is a vaccine for it? Also, mos vaccine advocates also focus on deaths from disease, not necessarily the spread of it, so I understand why mortality would be on this graph. Many times diseases are not accurately diagnosed and reported accurately unless someone dies, really. ETA. and personally, I'm not worried about my children getting a disease. I'm much more concerned about them dyeing or suffering life-long consequences from it.

Yes, there is. It just seems like a thrown together bunch of fruit that isn't very comparable in order to make a point.

Of the 5 diseases listed in conjuction to being saved by antibiotics, one is a virus and not treatable. (measles) Hardhats (antiboitics) save lives, but I have a stroke (measles).

Of the 5 diseases listed in conjunction to being saved by sanitation, 4 are transmitted via methods that don't involve wastes. (measles, scarlet fever, whooping cough, and diptheria) The fact that measles isn't an issue of sanitation and can't be treated by antibiotics just makes it even odder for it to be included. I guess that's where the ambiguous nutrition angle gets to shine.

Of the 5 diseases listed in conjuction/reference to vaccines, 2 of them aren't even used in the US. (scarlett fever and typhoid) To me this is like me saying that hurricane warnings don't save lives when I live in an area that doesn't even have hurricanes.

What I'm getting at is just because sanitation helped in one area, it doesn't mean that antibiotics didn't help as well. Just because antibiotics helped in another area, it doesn't mean that sanitation didn't come into play. Extending this line of reasoning means that we can't exclude the role that vaccines play either.

And then if you'd like to look at another pretty graph you can scroll down to figure 1 and look at the general decline of death rates regardless of cause and see that the general shape is the same.

Not sure what I'm saying other than it's really convoluted thinking.

[Hillargh]

I don't really take any of them with more than a grain of salt (and I don't vax), simply because I've yet to understand how you can compare whether or not decline in anything is due solely to vax, hygiene, better life saving procedures, medical advancement in general, further understanding of viruses and mutation, etc. I don't think anyone can accurately account for the unlimited variables in any of those situations, as they all happened in conjunction (and rather quickly in comparison to previous history) and not individually.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DS Forum