> http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
Ooh, is that a rabid anti-vax site? Let's look at the home page...
GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US
HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES
DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION
WHY VACCINES ARE INEFFECTIVE
WHY VACCINES ARE HARMFUL
WHY VACCINATION CONTINUES
THE BENEFICIAL NATURE OF CHILDHOOD INFECTION
Yep, looks like it.
similar graphs, less inflammatory sites:
http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.imagesByTo...
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/1/61.full
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death/
The CDC addresses the claim of historical decline here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
with this graph:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/images/measles_incidence...
Well, sure, so the measles vaccine sealed the deal, yes. But then you look at the longer timeline, and the vaccination occurred on the tail end of a much longer decline.
Science-Based Medicine has a particularly indignant blog entry on the topic here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431
Note the same trimming of the timeline.
I suspect the truth here is that vaccines were indeed effective in the (near-) eradication of most infectious diseases, but these diseases were already in longterm historic decline due to other more instrumental factors, like increasing urbanization and improved sanitation.
Yes, yes I did. The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility.
Better hygiene and medical care helps stop people dying of infectious disease. But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective. Oh look, here's a better image:
http://ocw.jhsph.edu/imageLibrary/index.cfm/go/il.viewImageD...
Right? There are hundreds of these sorts of graphs and epidemiological studies out there, and they all look pretty much exactly the same. Better hygiene only gets you so far - to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.
I'm not here to spoon feed you information in line with your heuristic baggage. You can "take me seriously" or not.
But your inference is that because of this, vaccines are ineffective.
My inference is that vaccines were not instrumental in the longterm decline of infectious diseases, contrary to the OP's claim. I thought I was pretty clear on that point.
to completely wipe out an infectious disease, you need vaccination.
This is a sound public policy message to encourage vaccination, but the data, as far as I can see, does not support such a strong and sweeping conclusion. Yes vaccines appear effective in the reduction of some infectious disease. It does not follow that vaccines are thus necessary to wipe out infectious disease. Surely this modest level of nuance is not too much to grasp?
1. Diseases such as measles were still established in developed western countries in the 50's and 60's, when hygiene and diet were comparable to today.
2. Similar diseases (eg. Polio) are on the brink of being wiped out in 3rd world countries with inadequate infrastructure and hygiene - largely by vaccination.
This is not "heuristic baggage". You're just wrong about vaccination.
For example, that paper I linked to, Incidence of infectious disease and the licensure of immunobiologics in the United States, probably includes a decent bibliography of relevant sources. Here's the conclusion again:
Historical data provide evidence of proof of efficacy of mass immunization for measles, polio, rubella, mumps, and pertussis, but not for diphtheria or tetanus.
That's fairly weak, actually. All they had to do there was establish a trend and then show some minimum degree of deviation. One suspects the data does not support a stronger conclusion. Why not? On first glance I'd guess it's because immunizations were introduced so late into the game, with the trend rapidly approaching zero, that you can't draw strong statistical conclusions.
But that's all conjecture on my part. How about other regions of the world? You take it on faith that "similar diseases...are on the brink of being wiped out in 3rd world countries with inadequate infrastructure and sanitation", but spend some time with the primary sources and you might come to a more nuanced position.
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
I've seen similar graphs over the years, basically arguing that these diseases were in long-term decline before the introduction of their respective vaccines, and that the vaccines merely sealed the deal.
Were I more ambitious, I'd seek out the source data from official sources, and confirm or refute the analysis myself.
This paper appears to have asked the same questions:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088445
It came to the following conclusion:
Historical data provide evidence of proof of efficacy of mass immunization for measles, polio, rubella, mumps, and pertussis, but not for diphtheria or tetanus.
This does not contradict the claim that the incidence of said diseases were already in significant decline prior to the introduction of immunizations, or that immunizations were not necessary for eradication.
It seems like a rather obvious analysis to do: compare the maximum historic incidence of said disease, the incidence at the time of vaccine introduction, and the rates of decline prior to and following said introduction. It should be fairly easy to argue from that whether a) the vaccine contributed to eradication, and b) the vaccine was necessary for eradication.