Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

It's not open-mindedness as being able to see. There is a clear dip in that graph prior to 1955 and it would be interesting to know why that's all. It's likely to be normal statistical variance, but there could be another reason. However, the focus should be the right handside of that graph showing a HUGE dip after the vaccine was released and the rates at nearly zero ever since.

 

Unless that prior dip wasn't a random fluctuation, but instead, the start of a steady decline in cases due to factors other than the vaccinations which where brought in just after the start of that decline.

 

Does anyone have a graph that goes further back in time, as that would be helpfull in trying to work out whether or not the pre 1955 drop was a random fluctuation or not.

[truman]

No I'm not. I was pointing out that, as the numbers dropped before vaccinations, then other factors than vaccination must be responsible.

 

Normal random fluctuations are clearly a factor other than vaccinations so I'm theorizing nothing there.

 

The numbers also rose before vaccination..but didn't afterwards..

[onewheeldave]

They are not denying it. As I'm sure you know.

 

Just to be clear on this- are you saying that people in the UK sufffering from things like pernacious anemia aren't being denied injectable B12?

[truman]

Unless that prior dip wasn't a random fluctuation, but instead, the start of a steady decline in cases due to factors other than the vaccinations which where brought in just after the start of that decline.

 

Does anyone have a graph that goes further back in time, as that would be helpfull in trying to work out whether or not the pre 1955 drop was a random fluctuation or not.

 

The trend was upwards until vaccinations were introduced.....

[onewheeldave]

You can see that previous to the vaccination the infection level jumped up and down considerably.

You are trying to say that one such random fluctuation was NOT in fact down to the normal variability...

 

No, I'm not saying that. It could have been random, it could have been something else.

[Cyclone]

Unless that prior dip wasn't a random fluctuation, but instead, the start of a steady decline in cases due to factors other than the vaccinations which where brought in just after the start of that decline.

You're back to conspiracy theory basically.

[Obelix]

Just to be clear on this- are you saying that people in the UK sufffering from things like pernacious anemia aren't being denied injectable B12?

 

They get quarterly doses as I recall. If you consider that being denied then I dont think theres much point discussing the matter further.

[sgtkate]

No, I'm not saying that. It could have been random, it could have been something else.

 

And I'm asking what? Are there any studies showing what could have caused that? Scientists don't tend to ignore stuff like that, so if they have then somewhere there should be an explanation as to why it's not statistically important, or if it is, then what explained it.

 

From a quick Google of 'what caused lower rates of polio in 1953' I found out that in 1952 there was an epidemic, the worst to ever hit the US, so the real question should have been why were there so many cases in 1952, and not why were there so few in 1953. This is why it's so easy for the anti-vaxers to put forward a seemingly compelling case until you actually start to analyse it and then it all falls apart. So nothing except the end of a epidemic led to lower rates in 1953, and as you can see on the graph the numbers rise again in 1954, before falling rapidly in 1955 after the vaccine.

[onewheeldave]

They get quarterly doses as I recall. If you consider that being denied then I dont think theres much point discussing the matter further.

 

You're spot on. Sufferers get 1 injection every 3 months.

 

They've set up the petition as,

 

1. many require more frequent injections, as evidenced by their symptoms increasing 1 month after the injection, and, getting worse over the following 2 months as they have to wait for the next one.

 

2. they've got large amounts of evidence showing the NHS's quotas for B12 are way too low.

 

Remember, injectable B12 is both very cheap (especially when compared to the anti-depressants frequently pushed on patients whose true issue is B12 deficiency) and, very, very safe.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:31 ----------

 

And I'm asking what? Are there any studies showing what could have caused that? Scientists don't tend to ignore stuff like that, so if they have then somewhere there should be an explanation as to why it's not statistically important, or if it is, then what explained it.

 

From a quick Google of 'what caused lower rates of polio in 1953' I found out that in 1952 there was an epidemic, the worst to ever hit the US, so the real question should have been why were there so many cases in 1952, and not why were there so few in 1953. This is why it's so easy for the anti-vaxers to put forward a seemingly compelling case until you actually start to analyse it and then it all falls apart. So nothing except the end of a epidemic led to lower rates in 1953, and as you can see on the graph the numbers rise again in 1954, before falling rapidly in 1955 after the vaccine.

The rise in 54' was relatively small, and, the fall immediately afterwards started, before the vaccinations.

 

To be honest, those 2 rises/falls are so much smaller than the ones we talked about previously, that they're even more likely to be random fluctuations.

 

Nevertheless, if you're going to see them as significant, you have to admit that the rise in 54' was relatively small, and, the fall immediately afterwards started, before the vaccinations.

[JFKvsNixon]

For those that rely upon information rather than illogical deductions, here's how NICE recommendations people get treated on the NHS for the deficiency of vitamin B12: http://cks.nice.org.uk/anaemia-b12-and-folate-deficiency#!scenario