[pradocchia]

The next time you want to make a point, pick a site with a bit more credibility.

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?

[anthonyb]

Two things which contradict your position:

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.

[pradocchia]

Yes, the third-world issue is interesting. Remember that "better sanitation and hygiene" is just speculation on what the instrumental causes might be, once vaccination has been cast into doubt. Someone with access to a research library could make a nice research project out of it, digging through footnotes and gathering up the available data.

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.