Please correct this statement, "We know that measles used to be much more prevalent, and we also know that measles virtually vanished BEFORE vaccines were rolled out". Measles was still very prevalent, what changed before the vaccine was the Mortality rate. The graph is showing mortality, not incidence.
Please correct this statement, "We know that measles used to be much more prevalent, and we also know that measles virtually vanished BEFORE vaccines were rolled out". Measles was still very prevalent, what changed before the vaccine was the Mortality rate. The graph is showing mortality, not incidence.
I first saw the UK ONS graph for measles mortality in a book by Trevor Gunn on Homeopathy and vaccination. Gunn argues in the book that though there is no graph data available for measles infection, it is legitimate to use mortality as a proxy to show a decline in incidence of disease. I’m not a statistician so can’t comment on the validity of Gunn’s view, but the point still stands that improvements in social conditions appear to have reduced mortality (and possibly infection rates) by over 99% from when record began, and well before the measles vaccine was introduced.
I suspect the scarey mortality figures issuing from the likes of WHO and health authorities in Developed nations are based on data from exactly those parts of the ‘Third World’ that have yet to enjoy the food and water security, good nutrition, and adequate sewerage control that we in the west take for granted.
If that were true, than there would not be a Brady Bunch episode of the whole family coming down with the measles in 1969. They also had episodes with Mumps. Those childhood diseases were still very common, just like chicken pox was for me.
You raise an interesting point but consider scarlet fever, for which there is still no vaccine. As with the other infectious diseases, it declined both in mortality AND infection rates, despite lack of vaccine. So it’s absolutely not clear that prevalence of measles etc. would be high ex-vaccine.
Yes, that is true, but there is a difference. Measles is said to have a protective affect, like chicken pox. It somehow is a right of passage for children. Parents reported a maturation effect after these diseases, in most cases, unless there was some nutritional deficiency which would cause adverse affects.
ISorry, I may have misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that a fictitious American family soap opera is a more accurate proxy for assessing the likelihood of measles infection in a population, than mortality graph data from Government statistical laboratories?
The same can be said about the propaganda film, “Old Yeller.” That movie was outrageous fear mongering. Tami may not fully understand why tv shows were called, “Programming.”
The Brady Bunch episode is far from fear mongering about measles. It just demonstrates that measles was a common occurrence among children during that time period. Just like chicken pox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5289k-dbOMY
Please correct this statement, "We know that measles used to be much more prevalent, and we also know that measles virtually vanished BEFORE vaccines were rolled out". Measles was still very prevalent, what changed before the vaccine was the Mortality rate. The graph is showing mortality, not incidence.
That’s an Interesting point.
I first saw the UK ONS graph for measles mortality in a book by Trevor Gunn on Homeopathy and vaccination. Gunn argues in the book that though there is no graph data available for measles infection, it is legitimate to use mortality as a proxy to show a decline in incidence of disease. I’m not a statistician so can’t comment on the validity of Gunn’s view, but the point still stands that improvements in social conditions appear to have reduced mortality (and possibly infection rates) by over 99% from when record began, and well before the measles vaccine was introduced.
I suspect the scarey mortality figures issuing from the likes of WHO and health authorities in Developed nations are based on data from exactly those parts of the ‘Third World’ that have yet to enjoy the food and water security, good nutrition, and adequate sewerage control that we in the west take for granted.
If that were true, than there would not be a Brady Bunch episode of the whole family coming down with the measles in 1969. They also had episodes with Mumps. Those childhood diseases were still very common, just like chicken pox was for me.
You raise an interesting point but consider scarlet fever, for which there is still no vaccine. As with the other infectious diseases, it declined both in mortality AND infection rates, despite lack of vaccine. So it’s absolutely not clear that prevalence of measles etc. would be high ex-vaccine.
Yes, that is true, but there is a difference. Measles is said to have a protective affect, like chicken pox. It somehow is a right of passage for children. Parents reported a maturation effect after these diseases, in most cases, unless there was some nutritional deficiency which would cause adverse affects.
ISorry, I may have misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that a fictitious American family soap opera is a more accurate proxy for assessing the likelihood of measles infection in a population, than mortality graph data from Government statistical laboratories?
Or am I being dense and this is just irony.
The same can be said about the propaganda film, “Old Yeller.” That movie was outrageous fear mongering. Tami may not fully understand why tv shows were called, “Programming.”
The Brady Bunch episode is far from fear mongering about measles. It just demonstrates that measles was a common occurrence among children during that time period. Just like chicken pox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5289k-dbOMY