[Valpal1]

You are being willfully obtuse if you are refusing to understand that Humphries is using a 50 year old study regarding a vaccine that was discontinued the following year to criticize and make untrue claims about the current vaccine.

Claiming to be unable to understand this simple logic unless you are able to read the full paper is just lame.

Seriously, just stop with the pretense and go back to your kool aid.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I do see how Humphries uses death by Measles and Isabella B. total number sick. I had to find a comparison chart that shows the difference.

I do see both of them stretching the truth to make their point. If you draw a line from 1910 to the arrow on the number of people getting sick it did go down by about 50,000 cases per 100K over a course of 50 years.

Though their is a significant drop after vaccines.

Except there is one major concern for proper statistics.
The peak deaths (60 per 100,000 people) which suggest the highest number of people getting measles was in the 1880's before there was a measurement of people getting sick. They only charted deaths.

Isabella B. also used an extreme case in the Netherlands of a religious group that had a higher death rate then pre-vaccines then the peak in the 1880's. This is obvious deception.

That doesn't mean Isabella is wrong it means she is cherry picking to make her case sound better then what it is.

After reading these charts I do not see either Isabella B. or Dr Suzanne Humphries as quacks as you suggest.
They both simply have a different perspective of what is a rational course of action for these disease.