Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Not a single person has been killed by the MMR vaccine, and I’d venture to say the ones who were “crippled” by a few strains of some dead virus weren’t long for this world anyway. In a bit of news that is surprising to no one except low IQ antivaxxers, dysfunctional immune systems are dysfunctional. Sorry if one of your kids was one of the unfit - it must be terrifying knowing a real live virus could kill them. Or worse - the kind of huge “viral load” a kid gets in an average elementary school classroom in January.

But yes, in the past when people have refused to take common sense measures, Nature has been relentless. One of Benjamin Franklin’s great regrets was that he never inoculated his son against smallpox because he thought the boy was too weak. You can guess what happened next. (He got smallpox for real and died.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

I think a lot of us are capable of understanding that we might not want to be reproducing with anti-vaxxer lunatics all on our own.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

Sobering. Had not realized how low vaccination rates were throughout the country. And a lot of the unvaccinated states have been hard hit by the closing of rural hospitals. Next winter is going to be deadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

I’ll “read the insert” as soon as you learn how to evaluate data intelligently. Perhaps your supplements and mommy bloggers have spoiled your brain? Or maybe you were born with a low IQ and struggle with scientific concepts generally?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

Let’s also point out that there have been very few advancements since 1963 that would predict continued future success.

As a people, we are less healthy now, and our doctors have very little experience with measles and its complications. Yes, we have ECMO and intubation and can remove part of the skull cap and largely keep things sterile now. But no kid is walking away from that kind of involvement at 100%, and we haven’t figured out how to stop the blindness or more insidious brain damage. Deaths might be worse than they were in 1963, not better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

Anonymous wrote:

Effing dopes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.