I just saw a bunch of graphs that clearly show the deadliness of all of the classic diseases dropping rapidly well before widespread vaccinations for said diseases, if that isn't proof enough that there is some validity to the claim that "vaccines take credit for something they did not accomplish", then I don't know what is.
You say "absolutely no proof to back it up", yet I am staring at said proof right now. If you want, why don't you show me why these graphs are incorrect.
Well, if I had to guess, it's probably both. In statistics, this is called "confounding".
So if you can't run some sort of double blind controlled experiment, one easy way is to look at places in the world where vaccines were applied but a change in sanitation either stayed the same or went down.
One major case like this (just from the top of my head) was the campaign to eradicate smallpox from 1958-1978. During that time a lot of sanitation in especially rural areas in the 3rd world declined due to political instability, but vaccination led to eradication.
Now that is a reasonable argument which I agree with. Quite a bit different from saying that vaccines may not be responsible for the major drops in a virus’s prevalence in parts of the world.
However when you understand that there are other plausible explanations for why a virus became less deadly, then it also puts us into a position to question what effects different vaccines have had, and which were effective. Which I think was the main point of this post.
I just saw a bunch of graphs that clearly show the deadliness of all of the classic diseases dropping rapidly well before widespread vaccinations for said diseases, if that isn't proof enough that there is some validity to the claim that "vaccines take credit for something they did not accomplish", then I don't know what is.
You say "absolutely no proof to back it up", yet I am staring at said proof right now. If you want, why don't you show me why these graphs are incorrect.
Well, if I had to guess, it's probably both. In statistics, this is called "confounding".
So if you can't run some sort of double blind controlled experiment, one easy way is to look at places in the world where vaccines were applied but a change in sanitation either stayed the same or went down.
One major case like this (just from the top of my head) was the campaign to eradicate smallpox from 1958-1978. During that time a lot of sanitation in especially rural areas in the 3rd world declined due to political instability, but vaccination led to eradication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#/media/File:Decade-in-which-smallpox-ceased-to-be-endemic-by-country.svg
Now that is a reasonable argument which I agree with. Quite a bit different from saying that vaccines may not be responsible for the major drops in a virus’s prevalence in parts of the world.
However when you understand that there are other plausible explanations for why a virus became less deadly, then it also puts us into a position to question what effects different vaccines have had, and which were effective. Which I think was the main point of this post.