Meryl,
To quote you... "Below is one article that shows an alternative explanation - there are many other articles that show similar information."
Did you actually read it?
It's explaining how "a combination of severe hypoxia, brain swelling and raised central venous pressure causes blood to leak from intracranial veins into the subduraÌ space, and that the cause of the subdural bleeding in some cases of infant head injury is therefore not traumatic rupture of bridging veins, but a phenomenon of immaturity."
Do you know how you can establish a combination of "severe hypoxia, brain swelling and raised CVP"? It's by strangulation Meryl - strangulation. So well done. You've reported on a study that explains why with strangulation you can get subdural bleeding.
It's not a defence of an innocent man - it's an explanation of how you can find these features at autopsy after strangling, and not necessarily beating a baby to death. Should I even mention that there's absolutely nothing in here about vaccination?
I think it once again displays how callous you are. Please post this in a separate blog. It's gold.
23 February, 2011
Punter,
“the two diseases TB and lung cancer are essentially impossible to differentially diagnose. That is why in the past 100 years the Western world saw a dramatic drop in the rate of TB but a massive rise in the rate of lung cancer.” How did I misinterpret that statement, as stupid as it is, and as stupid as your conclusion is.
For someone who has such a firm belief in scientific method, you find it quite easy to develop your own “non-germ theory”, with no references, no studies, no “real world data”, in fact, no evidence of any kind at all. But please go on. Tell me what the significance is of AFB’s within the granulomatous inflammation that is the hallmark of TB, as opposed to the lack of any bacteria within the necrotic lesions of lung carcinoma (I assume where not talking about adenocarcinoma), and the way in which TB patients improve with combination antibiotics, and lung Ca patients tend to just… die.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go on. Please expand. Put it on a website why don’t you and let us all bask in the glow of your amazing brain. What else can you shock me with? That MMR causes autism (should be easy), that seat belts are actually dangerous (oh, you did that too), and why not try that DPT causes SIDS (woops, that one’s gone now as well). How about septic arthritis? What causes that? How do the antibiotics kill people again? How would you treat septic arthritis? Actually, punter, what actually kills people? Why do people die at all? And is there a God?
21 February, 2011
19 February, 2011
"Being wrong about vaccination can and does have far-reaching negative health effects on the entire human race. "
Like those in Nigeria and surroundings who are now dead after they stopped vaccinating. And Japan, UK and Sweden when the pertussis herd immunity dropped. Oh, and Pakistan.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/conspiracy-rumours-keep-polio-alive-pakistan
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
If Greg's and Meryl's beliefs are correct, these diseases shouldn't be on the increase. Gosh. Maybe they're wrong.
Like those in Nigeria and surroundings who are now dead after they stopped vaccinating. And Japan, UK and Sweden when the pertussis herd immunity dropped. Oh, and Pakistan.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/conspiracy-rumours-keep-polio-alive-pakistan
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
If Greg's and Meryl's beliefs are correct, these diseases shouldn't be on the increase. Gosh. Maybe they're wrong.
17 February, 2011
Simple Greg.
Follow the bouncing ball. Or just read the long post I wrote. Think confounders - does that make it easy?
And then there's Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
I thought these diseases were naturally going away, according to your graphs? No, instead here, in the Western World, the mortality has reduced through better standards of living, health, hygiene, etc, but incidence didn't change until vaccinations. Your graphs don't show that, mine did. It's what's missing that's important.
In Nigeria, where the health, hospitals, hygiene, etc, aren't up to scratch, when the incidence returned, so too did the deaths, by the hundreds.
Do you want to incidence to go up again? That's what you're missing, and that's what's important in your interpretation. You're looking at one graph, an not the whole picture. The graph of the data is correct. Your conclusion isn't.
Maybe I'll tell my Nigeria story (and my UK, Japan and Sweden story as well) when you show them your graph.
Good day.
Follow the bouncing ball. Or just read the long post I wrote. Think confounders - does that make it easy?
And then there's Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
I thought these diseases were naturally going away, according to your graphs? No, instead here, in the Western World, the mortality has reduced through better standards of living, health, hygiene, etc, but incidence didn't change until vaccinations. Your graphs don't show that, mine did. It's what's missing that's important.
In Nigeria, where the health, hospitals, hygiene, etc, aren't up to scratch, when the incidence returned, so too did the deaths, by the hundreds.
Do you want to incidence to go up again? That's what you're missing, and that's what's important in your interpretation. You're looking at one graph, an not the whole picture. The graph of the data is correct. Your conclusion isn't.
Maybe I'll tell my Nigeria story (and my UK, Japan and Sweden story as well) when you show them your graph.
Good day.
Vanessa, it's not anyone's business until you proclaim it in a public space. So here's some facts to think about. Your decision is still yours...
In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
They were also really healthy kids too... Until they dropped dead. Really dead.
Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Yep. Healthy right up until the day they died.
Closer to my home...
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
In an outbreak of 25 cases of measles in Qld in Q1 2009, NONE of the cases were vaccinated. Also, referring to another outbreak, “The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301c.htm
During an outbreak in Q2 2006 in NSW, of the 33 children with measles, only 6 had received 1 dose of MMR, and the others none. None of the cases had received two doses.
ie: non- and under-vaccinated children get diseases.
In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
They were also really healthy kids too... Until they dropped dead. Really dead.
Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Yep. Healthy right up until the day they died.
Closer to my home...
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
In an outbreak of 25 cases of measles in Qld in Q1 2009, NONE of the cases were vaccinated. Also, referring to another outbreak, “The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301c.htm
During an outbreak in Q2 2006 in NSW, of the 33 children with measles, only 6 had received 1 dose of MMR, and the others none. None of the cases had received two doses.
ie: non- and under-vaccinated children get diseases.
Vanessa, it's not anyone's business until you proclaim it in a public space. So here's some facts to think about. Your decision is still yours...
In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
They were also really healthy kids too... Until they dropped dead. Really dead.
Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Yep. Healthy right up until the day they died.
Closer to my home...
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
In an outbreak of 25 cases of measles in Qld in Q1 2009, NONE of the cases were vaccinated. Also, referring to another outbreak, “The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301c.htm
During an outbreak in Q2 2006 in NSW, of the 33 children with measles, only 6 had received 1 dose of MMR, and the others none. None of the cases had received two doses.
ie: non- and under-vaccinated children get diseases.
And if we're talking risks vs benefits...
DISEASE:
Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
VACCINES:
MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
DISEASE
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
VACCINES
DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
Good luck.
In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985.
They were also really healthy kids too... Until they dropped dead. Really dead.
Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Yep. Healthy right up until the day they died.
Closer to my home...
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3302k.htm
In an outbreak of 25 cases of measles in Qld in Q1 2009, NONE of the cases were vaccinated. Also, referring to another outbreak, “The number of vaccine doses was known for 57 of the 78 cases, of which none had received 2 doses of a MCV, four (7%) had received 1 dose and 53 (93%) had received no doses: the remaining 21 cases were of unknown vaccination status”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3301c.htm
During an outbreak in Q2 2006 in NSW, of the 33 children with measles, only 6 had received 1 dose of MMR, and the others none. None of the cases had received two doses.
ie: non- and under-vaccinated children get diseases.
And if we're talking risks vs benefits...
DISEASE:
Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
VACCINES:
MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
DISEASE
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
VACCINES
DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
Good luck.
16 February, 2011
WTF?
Yes, we have a lot to be thankful to Meryl for....
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/whooping-cough-baby-dies-in-royal-childens-hospital/story-fn6bfkm6-1226007211379
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/death-sparks-vaccine-appeal-20110216-1awnl.html
"you can't die from whooping cough" - going to call these parents Meryl? Are all these diseases still on the decline?
Other great contributions to the world from Meryl:
- Defending shaken baby syndrome as scurvy
- Doubting HIV causes AIDS
- Claiming SIDS is due to lazy doctors
etc etc etc
Yep - lots of good stuff from a particularly callous lady.
As for the data I was somehow meant to get you... Read my post again where I quite clearly indicate why your graphs are nothing more than a comment on mortality, and show nothing about vaccinations. No one has kept it from you, as it's all in the public domain. Just like the graphs I presented from the GRIM books as well, no one is hiding them. I also didn't realise that I was duty bound to present them myself. Instead, I presented far more relevant and specific data. This isn't my job by the way, so I don't feel obliged to present you anything at all.
What you do with the graphs is pedestrian, and shows great leaps of logic that just don't stand up to scrutiny. Sure, it'll look good on "A Current Affair" or some other programme like that, but it just ain't right - the graphs are factual, but your conclusions aren't.
I realise you're too biased to see it otherwise, and you have a book to sell now, so you'll have to think you're right. But you just aren't. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary you stick to your guns (which is admirable) and maintain your brilliance. But you're still just wrong. Cherry-picking, biased data will keep your dreams alive. Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Where's your theory about "they're all reducing naturally anyway" now?
You're not only stupid, your dangerous, and ethically reprehensible. Go on Meryl, publish that.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/whooping-cough-baby-dies-in-royal-childens-hospital/story-fn6bfkm6-1226007211379
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/death-sparks-vaccine-appeal-20110216-1awnl.html
"you can't die from whooping cough" - going to call these parents Meryl? Are all these diseases still on the decline?
Other great contributions to the world from Meryl:
- Defending shaken baby syndrome as scurvy
- Doubting HIV causes AIDS
- Claiming SIDS is due to lazy doctors
etc etc etc
Yep - lots of good stuff from a particularly callous lady.
As for the data I was somehow meant to get you... Read my post again where I quite clearly indicate why your graphs are nothing more than a comment on mortality, and show nothing about vaccinations. No one has kept it from you, as it's all in the public domain. Just like the graphs I presented from the GRIM books as well, no one is hiding them. I also didn't realise that I was duty bound to present them myself. Instead, I presented far more relevant and specific data. This isn't my job by the way, so I don't feel obliged to present you anything at all.
What you do with the graphs is pedestrian, and shows great leaps of logic that just don't stand up to scrutiny. Sure, it'll look good on "A Current Affair" or some other programme like that, but it just ain't right - the graphs are factual, but your conclusions aren't.
I realise you're too biased to see it otherwise, and you have a book to sell now, so you'll have to think you're right. But you just aren't. In the face of so much evidence to the contrary you stick to your guns (which is admirable) and maintain your brilliance. But you're still just wrong. Cherry-picking, biased data will keep your dreams alive. Shall we turn into another Nigeria, where hundreds of people died in the early 2000's when they withdrew vaccinations? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690921
Where's your theory about "they're all reducing naturally anyway" now?
You're not only stupid, your dangerous, and ethically reprehensible. Go on Meryl, publish that.
13 February, 2011
Dear Bollster,
You've been outdone by punter yet again! I don't know why you persist. In the world of punterism, everything that the masses believe is wrong, and anything he believes in is right. He doesn't actually have much to back him up, but if you argue the point, he'll retaliate by... by... by... repeating that he's right! And if that isn't good enough proof for you, well you're just part of the masses who believe what they're told and don't have an independent thought and ignore the free-thinkers. HIV doesn't cause AIDS because he - punter - doesn't understand it. He said it himself, and that's good enough for me.
Meryl, I'm still waiting. I might try calling some radio stations today...
Michael.
You've been outdone by punter yet again! I don't know why you persist. In the world of punterism, everything that the masses believe is wrong, and anything he believes in is right. He doesn't actually have much to back him up, but if you argue the point, he'll retaliate by... by... by... repeating that he's right! And if that isn't good enough proof for you, well you're just part of the masses who believe what they're told and don't have an independent thought and ignore the free-thinkers. HIV doesn't cause AIDS because he - punter - doesn't understand it. He said it himself, and that's good enough for me.
Meryl, I'm still waiting. I might try calling some radio stations today...
Michael.
09 February, 2011
SBS
Meryl,
I just read your FB comment on SBS "Shaken Baby is a convenient diagnosis (much like SIDS). It means that the medical community don't have to examine anything they may have done to cause these problems". Are you frickn' serious? Did you even read the article? For a start, it's about the police trying to discredit doctors, and doctors sticking up for themselves. Secondly, are you now trying to imply that doctors are lazy in the face of abused babies? SBS is a quite straightforward diagnosis to make with clear diagnostic criteria. Are you going to trot out some old scurvy / Vitamin C myth? Are you defending child abusers?????
I just read your FB comment on SBS "Shaken Baby is a convenient diagnosis (much like SIDS). It means that the medical community don't have to examine anything they may have done to cause these problems". Are you frickn' serious? Did you even read the article? For a start, it's about the police trying to discredit doctors, and doctors sticking up for themselves. Secondly, are you now trying to imply that doctors are lazy in the face of abused babies? SBS is a quite straightforward diagnosis to make with clear diagnostic criteria. Are you going to trot out some old scurvy / Vitamin C myth? Are you defending child abusers?????
07 February, 2011
The old mortality figures....
Greg,
Whilst you haven't responded to my detailed retort of one of your emails, I will reply to your graphs. They are, of course, mortality figures, and these are influenced by many factors, including (we argue) vaccination, and also every other advance that medical science has made over the course of the last century - inotropes, antibiotics, intensive care, etc etc. We also need to be aware of changing coding systems as time as marched on.
Let's look into it closer. Here's the mortality graph from the GRIM books...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvZWM1YjUxZTEtMmZkNC00YWI0LTllNzktOWYyZjdkZmUwNzIy&hl=en
Now let's look at mortality from all infectious causes...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvZmRmMTc1OGEtZGFjZS00YmZiLTlhMWQtMmMwMGU3YWUzMmEx&hl=en
I think you'll agree that the curves follow each other, albiet the all infectious mortalities lags a little. Goodness me.
Now take a look at mortality from ALL causes...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvYTYwMzg0YmItYTZkZS00MzRhLWE2YWMtZWYzNTVhYjU3YmJl&hl=en
Goodness gracious, what is going on? Mortality figures of meningitis, all infections AND EVEN ALL CAUSES has decreased over the years. I would also add that mortality rates due to infective causes has possibly decreased faster than all causes. Why? Because we have better health, better hospitals, better ICU and better antibiotics. After the 1950 infectious mortality rates just plummet.
So what, I hear you ask. Well, it's just that your graphs and mine don't actually address vaccination at all. It's not proof that vaccination has had no effect - it's just a mortality graph, and the reductions we see have more to do with everything else. So what's a better way of looking at the effectiveness of vaccination? Well, you could compare mortality over two time periods, shorter ones, either side of a vaccination introduction as the other confounders will be less likely to change in that time. We also need to look at incidence, morbidity and mortality. To ignore morbidity and incidence is a rather two dimensional way of addressing an issue. It ignores the sickness and costs that go along with these diseases. Incidence is a more reasonable yardstick, some would argue. I think you need to look at it all.
So take a look at
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi34suppl.htm~cda-cdi34suppl-3-vpd.htm~cda-cdi34suppl-3-vpd7.htm
Fig 3.7.1 clearly shows a seasonal variation, and that it was on the increase at about 2002. After that, it tails off. Why?
Table 3.7.1 clearly shows the large number of notifications and hospitalisations, and finally deaths. In 05-07 there were 904 hospitalisations primarily for meningococcal meningitis, but only 32 deaths. Your mortality graphs do not address the 872 patients that didn't die, that spent an average of 5 days in hospital. How many of them were close to death? How many have been left with permanent neurological sequelae such as vision or hearing impediments, or learning difficulties that we know follow this disease? We don't know from this article, but we can say that they don't appear in mortality graphs.
So what effect does vaccination have? Remember, short time periods, confounders unchanged, except for vaccination schedule "Between 2002 (before the national meningococcal C vaccination program commenced) and 2007, serogroup C disease notifications decreased by 92% from a peak of 225 in 2002 to 19 in 2007 (1.15 to 0.09 per 100,000 population) (Figure 3.7.4)". That's the effect of the vaccination program. Right there. Follow the red dashes in the graph.
You might again argue that it was on the decline anyway, but "by comparison, serogroup B disease notifications decreased by 27% from a peak in 2002 of 294 to 213 cases in 2007 ". Follow the green dots. If incidence decreases, then it goes on to be that so will mortality and morbidity.
So we can observe that meningococcal meningitis follows a seasonal variation, and that after 2002 it decreased in incidence. We can see that the incidence of Men C disease has decreased much faster than the B serotype, which decreases as well, but at a slower rate.
So there's real world figures, explained as simply as I can. We've addressed why mortality figures ignore many many sick people, and we've addressed the effect that the MenC vaccine has had, dramatically reducing notifications. If you still disagree, then you're ignoring the real world data that has now been placed before you on a platter.
We now live in a world where people can survive meningitis, whereas less than a century ago they died regularly. This has to do with medicine as a whole. Although we're good at saving lives, we're not perfect, as these figures show. Vaccination has led to a decreased incidence in the disease, and this has lead to even further decreased morbidity and mortality. Why would you not want the incidence of a disease with a 3.5% mortality rate decreased further? Beats me.
Whilst you haven't responded to my detailed retort of one of your emails, I will reply to your graphs. They are, of course, mortality figures, and these are influenced by many factors, including (we argue) vaccination, and also every other advance that medical science has made over the course of the last century - inotropes, antibiotics, intensive care, etc etc. We also need to be aware of changing coding systems as time as marched on.
Let's look into it closer. Here's the mortality graph from the GRIM books...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvZWM1YjUxZTEtMmZkNC00YWI0LTllNzktOWYyZjdkZmUwNzIy&hl=en
Now let's look at mortality from all infectious causes...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvZmRmMTc1OGEtZGFjZS00YmZiLTlhMWQtMmMwMGU3YWUzMmEx&hl=en
I think you'll agree that the curves follow each other, albiet the all infectious mortalities lags a little. Goodness me.
Now take a look at mortality from ALL causes...
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B158AWpYUwDvYTYwMzg0YmItYTZkZS00MzRhLWE2YWMtZWYzNTVhYjU3YmJl&hl=en
Goodness gracious, what is going on? Mortality figures of meningitis, all infections AND EVEN ALL CAUSES has decreased over the years. I would also add that mortality rates due to infective causes has possibly decreased faster than all causes. Why? Because we have better health, better hospitals, better ICU and better antibiotics. After the 1950 infectious mortality rates just plummet.
So what, I hear you ask. Well, it's just that your graphs and mine don't actually address vaccination at all. It's not proof that vaccination has had no effect - it's just a mortality graph, and the reductions we see have more to do with everything else. So what's a better way of looking at the effectiveness of vaccination? Well, you could compare mortality over two time periods, shorter ones, either side of a vaccination introduction as the other confounders will be less likely to change in that time. We also need to look at incidence, morbidity and mortality. To ignore morbidity and incidence is a rather two dimensional way of addressing an issue. It ignores the sickness and costs that go along with these diseases. Incidence is a more reasonable yardstick, some would argue. I think you need to look at it all.
So take a look at
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi34suppl.htm~cda-cdi34suppl-3-vpd.htm~cda-cdi34suppl-3-vpd7.htm
Fig 3.7.1 clearly shows a seasonal variation, and that it was on the increase at about 2002. After that, it tails off. Why?
Table 3.7.1 clearly shows the large number of notifications and hospitalisations, and finally deaths. In 05-07 there were 904 hospitalisations primarily for meningococcal meningitis, but only 32 deaths. Your mortality graphs do not address the 872 patients that didn't die, that spent an average of 5 days in hospital. How many of them were close to death? How many have been left with permanent neurological sequelae such as vision or hearing impediments, or learning difficulties that we know follow this disease? We don't know from this article, but we can say that they don't appear in mortality graphs.
So what effect does vaccination have? Remember, short time periods, confounders unchanged, except for vaccination schedule "Between 2002 (before the national meningococcal C vaccination program commenced) and 2007, serogroup C disease notifications decreased by 92% from a peak of 225 in 2002 to 19 in 2007 (1.15 to 0.09 per 100,000 population) (Figure 3.7.4)". That's the effect of the vaccination program. Right there. Follow the red dashes in the graph.
You might again argue that it was on the decline anyway, but "by comparison, serogroup B disease notifications decreased by 27% from a peak in 2002 of 294 to 213 cases in 2007 ". Follow the green dots. If incidence decreases, then it goes on to be that so will mortality and morbidity.
So we can observe that meningococcal meningitis follows a seasonal variation, and that after 2002 it decreased in incidence. We can see that the incidence of Men C disease has decreased much faster than the B serotype, which decreases as well, but at a slower rate.
So there's real world figures, explained as simply as I can. We've addressed why mortality figures ignore many many sick people, and we've addressed the effect that the MenC vaccine has had, dramatically reducing notifications. If you still disagree, then you're ignoring the real world data that has now been placed before you on a platter.
We now live in a world where people can survive meningitis, whereas less than a century ago they died regularly. This has to do with medicine as a whole. Although we're good at saving lives, we're not perfect, as these figures show. Vaccination has led to a decreased incidence in the disease, and this has lead to even further decreased morbidity and mortality. Why would you not want the incidence of a disease with a 3.5% mortality rate decreased further? Beats me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
you’re back-peddling quickly today. I think your words were “It did nothing of the sort it was just that doctors had pretty much stopped diagnosing TB, thinking it was a disease of the third world, and dramatically increased their diagnoses of lung cancer”. Sounds to me like that’s what you were saying. Damn those lazy doctors, just diagnosing things on a whim. I’m sure those lung cancer rates are just TB, or is it the other way now?
As for the studies, why don’t you look them up yourself. you’ve got a brain too, don’t you?