Well I need to go to bed now, and I'll have a proper look at your chart tomorrow. But a few things that strike me as questionable are:
A. This chart only looks at deaths in the US from 1900-1965 (a pretty small amount of time), it doesn't state when the typoid vaccine was introduced (I believe there is no vaccine for scarlet fever, so I'm not sure why it's plotted on the graph), and it also plots deaths against "per 100,000 people", making the lower end of the chart unreadable because there were nearly 200 million people living in the US in 1965. Meaning a figure of 1 death per 100,000 people = 2000 deaths in a population of 200 million. Quite significant.
...
Quote
The reason I went back and found this chart was because I thought your 1980-forward stuff from the first link was to narrow.
The plot I dug up is meant to call into question the 'fact' that vaccines are as effective as commonly claimed and deserve the 100% credit for disease reduction that their proponents love to communicate. The reason why scarlet fever is there and is important is that there never was a vaccine for it yet the trajectory of the disease mirrors the others. This lends strength to the contention that something other than vaccinations is at play. Again, strongly hypothesized is sanitation and food availability.
As for the Swedish data, I'm not sure I would completely trust data from the 1700's. Nor would I map Jenner's technology to what is modern. I actually do think that a few vaccinations probably do pass the risk/reward test and make sense, and smallpox is likely one of these. Perhaps and perhaps not on an ongoing basis. In some cases it may make sense to vaccinate only when a near extinct disease is threatening to make a come-back among a given population. None-the-less this doesn't conflict with the points I am trying to make.
You make some valid points on the small time-frames of my data, and also on the trustworthiness of very old data from the 1700s. I agree with you that not all vaccines should be considered "equal", and that the risk/reward of certain vaccines shoud be taken into question. But I say this more from a point of view of the corruption of Big Pharma trying to make money, rather than any sort of health risk. I am not a fan of Big Pharma in general, as history has shown they are not a very reputable bunch!
Quote
Here's another question...not that similar ones have been answered or anything, but anyway:
If vaccination is very safe with negligible negative health impacts, why is it necessary to give product liability immunity to drug makers for vaccines in particular? Can they not just price the (near-zero) incidents of harm into their product like everyone else?
Seems to me (and a lot of other people) that this liability immunity granted to select pharma product manufactures is contributing to a lower level of testing and quality control which is endangering a lot of people. IMO, many many times more people than are threatened by this failure than by the very diseases that the product is supposed to provide (some) protection against. To add insult to injury, the target diseases are in many cases laughably mild in the first place. e.g., chickenpox and mumps both of which I've had and thus have lifetime reliable immunity to. I would much rather have either of these two short-duration nuisance ailments than a lifetime of some debilitating auto-immune related malady and/or neurological damage.
I agree with your first points about product liability immunity, and I believe that again this is due to corruption in the pharmaceutical industry with the main purpose of making money. However there are stringent trials which pharmaceutical companies must perform before allowing their products to be used (of course these trials are not always properly performed, and companies sometimes withhold data that suggests their products are insufficiently active, eg Roche and Tamiflu that I mentioned earlier).
I don't agree with your opinion that "many many times more people than are threatened by this failure than by the very diseases that the product is supposed to provide (some) protection against." Because there doesn't seem to be any reliable data to support that claim. Of course it does depend on the severity of the disease the vaccine is preventing - You mention chicken pox and mumps, both of which I had as a child too.
While chicken pox is not particularly severe as you mentioned, mumps can be very severe if contracted as an adult - in fact a relative of mine in his 60s became very ill indeed after contracting mumps.
Interestingly the UK doesn't normally vaccinate against chicken pox (I believe the USA does), but we do have the MMR vaccine. To answer your other question about Hepatitis B vaccination, that isn't mandatory in the UK either.
"a lifetime of some debilitating auto-immune related malady and/or neurological damage." Again, I haven't seen solid evidence that this is a possibility.
Quote
As for the 1/100,000 death rate, no, I don't find that terribly significant. There is other low-hanging fruit which can be addressed with more effect and fewer problems. 1965 was about the time they started putting seat-belts in cars.
The autism rate is supposedly up to around 1/50 (up from like 1/10,000 when I when I was a kid.) Nobody is allowed to question vaccination as a contributing factor and, coincidentally, nobody can seem to figure out what is going on either. Even if the rate increase stops, when integrated across the population we are talking about on the order of 6,000,000 people effected in the U.S. 6 million is about 3000 times the 2k which bothers you so much. True, most autistic people are not 'dead', but in severe cases being dead is vastly preferable. Or it would be to me.
My main problem with the graph was simply that it seemed to show cherry-picked data and the scale made it hard to read because it was /100,000 people. But I accept its validity.
Regarding your point about the autism rate, you're correct - the diagnoses have increased dramatically, as they have with many other neurological conditions such as ADHD. The hugely important point to make here though, is that increased diagnoses do not necessarily mean an increase in the number of conditions. There has been a huge amount of research and study into neurological disorders in the last 20 years, and doctors/psychiatrists can now recognize symptoms of these disorders and make a diagnosis. As I said earlier, in the past these people would have just been branded as "idiots" and sent on their way. Now, they can be diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum, which obviously increases the numbers of diagnoses.
So basically, there may be a correlation between the introduction of vaccines and the increase of diagnoses of neurological disorders, but this in no way proves causation. Not only that, but there is significant evidence that (at least with autism) there is no causation. Such as the meta-analysis i posted earlier.
You are absolutely allowed to question whatever you want as a contributing factor. You could hypothesize hundreds of things that were causing the increase in autism diagnoses, from too many cheeseburgers to the exhaust fumes of cars. But without solid studies showing causation, your claims have no validity.
Like I said, I am not a fan of Big Pharma, I understand that some of their practices are deplorable and corrupt, and their influence is especially worrying within the private healthcare system in places such as the USA. But that doesn't mean everything they do is dangerous.
