Physicians and health professionals are now speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
john
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
and are depressed.
PeterB - Original
When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago, the public still
believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by
government. Those days are over. This lesson also extends to areas
beyond medicine. Thanks for the link.
dr_jeff
That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
articles.
Have a lovely day.
dr_jeff
Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria
entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines
are absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable
diseases are has not been lost, either. That's why vaccines save lives.
Jeff
Mark Probert
I disagree. There are many people who claim that the diseases are mild
and cause no long term problems. They claim the risk is higher with
vaccination.
I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have
these people have a lesson. The immunity one gets from the disease
does not last a lifetime. The complications of the disease often wait
for adulthood.
PeterB - Original
In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
to prove such safety. As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
responsibility to produce that data. Unfortunately, you can't,
because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
the vaccine makers despite decades of access. You might want to talk
to your sponsors about that.
dr_jeff
> On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
>>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
>>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
>>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
>>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
>>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
>>> and are depressed.
>> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
>> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
>> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
>> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
>> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
>> articles.
>
> In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> to prove such safety.
Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> responsibility to produce that data.
Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
your claims.
> Unfortunately, you can't,
> because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
vaccine reports"? It never did. VAERS was made to address a particular
issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> You might want to talk
> to your sponsors about that.
I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
Jeff
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> >>> and are depressed.
> >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> >> articles.
>
> > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > to prove such safety.
>
> Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
That must explain why you didn't post any.
> > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > responsibility to produce that data.
>
> Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> your claims.
Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who
advocate the policy of intervention. Only an irrational pharmnut
would claim otherwise. Are you an irrational pharmnut?
> > Unfortunately, you can't,
> > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
>
> Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
> vaccine reports"? It never did.
I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the
importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. It's there, look
it up.
> VAERS was made to address a particular
> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
developed for those yet to be affected.
> > You might want to talk
> > to your sponsors about that.
>
> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.
dr_jeff
<...>
>> VAERS was made to address a particular
>> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
>> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> developed for those yet to be affected.
Of course not. VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
is being used. Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
trials prior to licensure.
>>> You might want to talk
>>> to your sponsors about that.
>> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
>
> You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.
No, I mean that I only speak for myself. I get no money from any drug
company or other type of pharmaceutical company.
Jeff
Jan Drew
http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm
Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
�-----
Abstract
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer
review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of
scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be
blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
�-----
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently been wrestling with the issues of
the
acceptability and reliability of scientific evidence. In its judgement
in
the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow, the court attempted to set
guidelines
for U.S. judges to follow when listening to scientific experts.
Whether or
not findings had been published in a peer-reviewed journal provided
one
important criterion. But in a key caveat, the court emphasized that
peer
review might sometimes be flawed, and that therefore this criterion
was not
unequivocal evidence of validity or otherwise. A recent analysis of
peer
review adds to this controversy by identifying an alarming lack of
correlation between reviewers' recommendations.
The Supreme Court questioned the authority of peer review.
Many scientists and lawyers are unhappy about the admission by the top
legal
authority in the United States that peer review might in some
circumstances
be flawed [1]. David Goodstein, writing in the Guide to the Federal
Rules of
Evidence - one of whose functions is to interpret the judgement in the
case
of Daubert - states that "Peer review is one of the sacred pillars of
the
scientific edifice" [2]. In public, at least, almost all scientists
would
agree. Those who disagree are almost always dismissed in pejorative
terms
such as "maverick," "failure," and "driven by bitterness."
Peer review is central to the organization of modern science. The
peer-review process for submitted manuscripts is a crucial determinant
of
what sees the light of day in a particular journal. Fortunately, it is
less
effective in blocking publication completely; there are so many
journals
that most even modestly competent studies will be published provided
that
the authors are determined enough. The publication might not be in a
prestigious journal, but at least it will get into print. However,
peer
review is also the process that controls access to funding, and here
the
situation becomes much more serious. There might often be only two or
three
realistic sources of funding for a project, and the networks of
reviewers
for these sources are often interacting and interlocking. Failure to
pass
the peer-review process might well mean that a project is never
funded.
Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability
and
objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements
of
science are to be greeted with public confidence - and there is plenty
of
evidence to suggest that such confidence is low and eroding - it
should be
able to demonstrate that peer review, "one of the sacred pillars of
the
scientific edifice," is a process that has been validated objectively
as a
reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been
done.
Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for
making
appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks
for
that evidence it is simply not there.
Why not apply scientific methods to the peer review process?
For 30 years or so, I and others have been pointing out the
fallibility of
peer review and have been calling for much more openness and
objective
evaluation of its procedures [3-5]. For the most part, the scientific
establishment, its journals, and its grant-giving bodies have resisted
such
open evaluation. They fail to understand that if a process that is as
central to the scientific endeavor as peer review has no validated
experimental base, and if it consistently refuses open scrutiny, it is
not
surprising that the public is increasingly skeptical about the agenda
and
the conclusions of science.
Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there
is a
great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and
validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give
confidence but
is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn
have
thrown a bombshell [6]. Their conclusions are measured and cautious,
but
there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of
something
truly rotten at the core of science.
Forget the reviewers. Just flip a coin.
Rothwell and Martyn performed a detailed evaluation of the reviews of
papers
submitted to two neuroscience journals. Each journal normally sent
papers
out to two reviewers. Reviews of abstracts and oral presentations sent
to
two neuroscience meetings were also evaluated. One meeting sent its
abstracts to 16 reviewers and the other to 14 reviewers, which
provides a
good opportunity for statistical evaluation. Rothwell and Martyn
analyzed
the correlations among reviewers' recommendations by analysis of
variance.
Their report should be read in full; however, the conclusions are
alarmingly
clear. For one journal, the relationships among the reviewers'
opinions were
no better than that obtained by chance. For the other journal, the
relationship was only fractionally better. For the meeting abstracts,
the
content of the abstract accounted for only about 10 to 20 percent of
the
variance in opinion of referees, and other factors accounted for 80 to
90
percent of the variance.
These appalling figures will not be surprising to critics of peer
review,
but they give solid substance to what these critics have been saying.
The
core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in
terms of
oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major
journals) and
funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results
little
better than does chance. Given the fact that most reviewers are likely
to be
mainstream and broadly supportive of the existing organization of the
scientific enterprise, it would not be surprising if the likelihood
of
support for truly innovative research was considerably less than that
provided by chance.
Objective evaluation of grant proposals is a high priority.
Scientists frequently become very angry about the public's rejection
of the
conclusions of the scientific process. However, the Rothwell and
Martyn
findings, coming on top of so much other evidence, suggest that the
public
might be right in groping its way to a conclusion that there is
something
rotten in the state of science. Public support can only erode further
if
science does not put its house in order and begin a real attempt to
develop
validated processes for the distribution of publication rights, credit
for
completed work, and funds for new work. Funding is the most important
issue
that most urgently requires opening up to rigorous research and
objective
evaluation.
What relevance does this have for pharmacology and pharmaceuticals?
Despite
enormous amounts of hype and optimistic puffery, pharmaceutical
research is
actually failing [7]. The annual number of new chemical entities
submitted
for approval is steadily falling in spite of the enthusiasm for
techniques
such as combinatorial chemistry, high-throughput screening, and
pharmacogenomics. The drive to merge pharmaceutical companies is
driven by
failure, and not by success.
The peer review process may be stifling innovation.
Could the peer-review processes in both academia and industry have
destroyed
rather than promoted innovation? In my own field of
psychopharmacology,
could it be that peer review has ensured that in depression and
schizophrenia, we are still largely pursuing themes that were
initiated in
the 1950s? Could peer review explain the fact that in both diseases
the
efficacy of modern drugs is no better than those compounds developed
in
1950? Even in terms of side-effects, where the differences between old
and
new drugs are much hyped, modern research has failed substantially. Is
it
really a success that 27 of every 100 patients taking the selective 5-
HT
reuptake inhibitors stop treatment within six weeks compared with the
30 of
every 100 who take a 1950s tricyclic antidepressant compound? The
Rothwell-Martyn bombshell is a wake-up call to the cozy establishments
who
run science. If science is to have any credibility - and also if it is
to be
successful - the peer-review process must be put on a much sounder
and
properly validated basis or scrapped altogether.
"Fiona Godlee and colleagues at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
sent
an article containing eight deliberate mistakes in study design,
analysis and interpretation to more than 200 of the journal's regular
reviewers, most of whom WERE AWARE [emphasis mine] that they were
taking part in an experiment1. The reviewers, on average, reported
fewer than TWO [emphasis mine] of the errors." [see
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990.html]
Flaws are found in validating medical studies
Many see need to overhaul standards for peer review
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 15, 2005
WASHINGTON -- They are two of the most widely publicized pieces of
medical research in recent years: Reports in prestigious journals
declared that women who underwent hormone replacement therapy, and
people who ingested large amounts of Vitamin E, had relatively low
rates of heart disease.
But after research contradicted those studies -- frustrating anyone
who
had followed their recommendations -- some specialists began looking
at
whether peer review had failed to identify serious flaws in the
research.
But the specialists found that it was almost impossible to discover
what had happened in the vetting process, since peer reviewers are
unpaid, anonymous, and unaccountable. Moreover, their reviews are kept
confidential, making it impossible to know the parameters of the
reviews.
Now, after a study that sent reverberations through the medical
profession by finding that almost one-third of top research articles
have been either contradicted or seriously questioned, some
specialists
are calling for radical changes in the system.
In advance of a world congress on peer review next month in Chicago,
these specialists are suggesting that reviewers drop their anonymity
and allow comments to be published. Some are proposing that peer
reviewers be paid to ensure a more even quality of review and analysis
among all journals.
Dr. Drummond Rennie, who relies on review as deputy editor of JAMA,
the
Journal of the American Medical Association, said of the process,
''The
more we look into it, the harder it is to prove whether it does good
or
bad."
Rennie has called for greater study of whether peer review improves
research, and he has a personal policy of disclosing his name when he
reviews articles.
''It would be lovely to start anew and to set up a trial of peer
review
against no peer review," Rennie said. ''But no journal is willing to
risk it."
Rennie's journal published the study, which said that subsequent
research had found that almost one-third of the top papers that
appeared in top journals over a 13-year period from 1990 to 2003, had
been either contradicted or found to have potentially exaggerated
results. All the articles had undergone vigorous peer review, leading
to questions about whether problems should have been caught by
reviewers.
The author of that study, Dr. John Ioannidis, an adjunct professor at
the Tufts University School of Medicine, said that flaws in the system
were not solely responsible for the problems with the initial studies,
but he said that they may be ''part of the puzzle" that should be
examined to improve research.
Ioannidis has proposed making peer reviews public so that ''one could
see whether someone said, 'This is a great study, publish it,' or
whether there was constructive scientific thinking, comment and
criticism." He noted that he could not examine any peer reviews,
including those for the hormone replacement and Vitamin E studies,
because of the confidentiality surrounding peer review.
Under the system of peer review, a researcher submits findings to a
journal for publication. Along with a review by editors, the article
is
sent to several specialists in the field.
These reviewers are not paid for their time, their names are usually
not published, and their comments usually remain secret. They are
usually not allowed to contact the researchers directly to ask
questions, and they do not try to replicate the research.
The system has often had successes; many journal editors say peer
review has saved countless prominent scientists from publishing
seriously flawed work, and has spared the public from following
mistaken medical advice.
But peer review also lacks consistent standards. Procedures vary among
the world's 10,000 or so journals. A peer reviewer often spends about
four hours reviewing research that may have taken months or years to
complete, but the amount of time spent on a review and the expertise
of
the reviewer can differ greatly, especially at lesser-known journals.
''It has been bandied about as a sort of 'Good Housekeeping Seal of
Approval,' " said Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England
Journal of Medicine. ''It is only as good as the peer reviewers and
editors."
The increasing focus on peer review will be highlighted next month,
when dozens of journal editors and specialists in peer review meet in
Chicago. Dozens of papers will be presented on topics that include
whether peer review adds value, and whether conflict-of-interest rules
are working.
J=2E Scott Armstrong, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania
who
has spent years analyzing peer review, has voiced hope that the
conference will lead to radical change in the way journals conduct
peer
review. The system, he said, is outdated and outmoded.
Pointing to a move by some journals to put their information on the
Internet and to publish the names of reviewers, he predicts that the
current system of anonymous reviewers will be replaced by a version of
Amazon.com, in which scientists from around the world contribute their
thoughts to constantly updated research.
Change is not likely to come, however, at the upcoming Fifth
International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. That
gathering is intended as a forum for discussion, rather than
decision-making.
There is no governing body that defines what constitutes good peer
review, or that demands that certain standards be followed.
Moreover, some of the editors at some of the large journals are not
eager to change the system. Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, who is the editor of
the New England Journal of Medicine, said he supports keeping the
review system anonymous and unpaid.
''We don't think the system is broken and needs to be overhauled,"
Drazen said.
Drazen also said peer review is not necessarily at fault when a study
is not replicated by subsequent research. ''As a scientist, the things
that give me the most joy is when someone is able to replicate
something I published," Drazen said. ''That means that you got it
right. But sometimes people cannot replicate things. It is a mistake
to
view it as black and white . . . if you do a second study but can't
replicate the primary findings, it doesn't necessarily mean the
original research was wrong."
Ioannidis, the author of the study on flawed research, said he had
examined articles from top journals published from 1990 to 2003, and
had found that 16 percent of those studies were later contradicted,
and
that another 16 percent were not found to have had as strong a result
in subsequent research.
Many factors led to the conflicting results, he said, including the
fact that scientific research is often updated when larger or
better-controlled trials are conducted. But flaws in the initial
studies, including integrity and methodology, could not be ruled out.
Some journals are trying to improve the system by making themselves
more open to the public. The Public Library of Science publishes a
magazine called PLOS Medicine, which charges authors $1,500 per
article
but which provides its journals online for free.
PLOS Medicine also encourages peer reviewers to reveal their identity,
but it does not demand it.
The journal's senior editor, Barbara Cohen, said some reviewers want
anonymity out of concern about retribution, which she described as
''you trashed my paper at Nature, now I'm trashing yours at Science,"
referring to two leading journals.
Cohen also said she is sympathetic to younger peer reviewers who fear
that providing criticism of a senior person in the field will hurt
their career. This is a common complaint among reviewers.
But given the high number of studies that end up either wrong or
deeply
flawed, much of the medical profession is looking for new ways to
examine research.
Armstrong, the professor who has read dozens of studies on peer
review,
cited numerous embarrassing incidents that he said had called the peer
review process into question.
In one study, for example, researchers submitted a plagiarized paper
to
110 journals, but only two publications recognized the problem.
In another study, researchers examined 18 papers that had been
published in peer-reviewed journals by a person who later admitted
scientific fraud; they found that 16 of the papers had an average of
12 errors each.
>
> Have a lovely day.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,570,000 for vaccines not safe nor
effective.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/earlyshow/health/main5246940.shtm
http://www.marytocco.com/aretheysafe.htm
http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/pediatricks/vacctoday.asp
------------------------------------------------------
It is evening not doc. The day is over.
Jan Drew
> On Nov 3, 6:04�pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > >> and are depressed.
>
> > > When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago, the public still
> > > believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by
> > > government. �Those days are over. �This lesson also extends to areas
> > > beyond medicine. �Thanks for the link.
>
> > Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria
> > entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines
> > are absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable
> > diseases are has not been lost, either.
>
> I disagree. There are many people who claim that the diseases are mild
> and cause no long term problems. They claim the risk is higher with
> vaccination.
>
> I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have
> these people have a lesson.
So, you want to be people sick. Not surprised, and a very hate filled
Jew.
Jan Drew
And yours and yours alone to take responsibility to prove you are a
dr.
You have failed to do so. That makes you a hypocrite, Jeffrey, Peter,
Joseph Utz.
Jan Drew
<...>
PeterB - Original
>
> <...>
>
> >> VAERS was made to address a particular
> >> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> >> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> > More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> > vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> > developed for those yet to be affected.
>
> Of course not.
Yes, the proper vetting of VAERS reports would permit a meaningful
review of vaccine safety in those already affected.
> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
> is being used.
No kidding.
Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
> trials prior to licensure.
I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
where is it?
> >>> You might want to talk
> >>> to your sponsors about that.
> >> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
>
> > You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.
>
> No, I mean that I only speak for myself. I get no money from any
> drug company or other type of pharmaceutical company.
I didn't say you did.
Mike
> On Nov 3, 6:04 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
>>>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
>>>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
>>>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
>>>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
>>>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
>>>> and are depressed.
>>> When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago, the public still
>>> believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by
>>> government. Those days are over. This lesson also extends to areas
>>> beyond medicine. Thanks for the link.
>> Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria
>> entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines
>> are absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable
>> diseases are has not been lost, either.
>
> I disagree. There are many people who claim that the diseases are mild
> and cause no long term problems.
This is true. With some diseases, for most people they are mild
and cause no long term problems. Same as with vaccines: safe for
most people.
> They claim the risk is higher with vaccination.
For some people this is true, for others, the opposite its true.
You never know. People have a right to assess risks and make
decisions.
> I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have
> these people have a lesson.
Are you saying that there were nice, extensive zoster epidemics and that
they were stopped by chickenpox vaccine? If not then what's the point?
I could say that the vaccine is more likely to bring zoster epidemics.
Exposure to kids infected with chickenpox were boosting older people's
immunity. Not any more. Once the chickenpox-vaccine generation reached
high school we started seeing chickenpox outbreaks in high schools.
When they reached college age the college chickenpox outbreaks began.
That did not happen before. Extrapolating from that, once they reach
old age... - well, most of people reading this, myself included will not
see what happens then. Herd immunity will be destroyed by vaccination.
> The immunity one gets from the disease
> does not last a lifetime.
For syphilis, yes, there is no immunity whatsoever. For a disease like
mumps, it is lifetime immunity.
> The complications of the disease often wait
> for adulthood.
Or the diseases wait for adulthood when the complications become
more likely.
>
> That's why vaccines save lives.
Correction needed: *some* vaccines save lives. A blanket statement
"vaccines save lives" is incorrect.
Peter Moran
news:29315117-a91f-4574...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> john wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD,
> > and
> > Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't
> > focus
> > and are depressed.
>
> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> articles.
In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
to prove such safety. As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
responsibility to produce that data.
PM Not really. We who have lived through the epidemics of the past know
from our own observations that vaccines save lives and a great deal of
morbidity at acceptable risk. My mother would never let me drink from a
public water fountain druing the polio epidemics and the hospitals had ward
after ward with of iron lungs. This is in prevaccination Australia where
there has been no change in sanitation levels or healthier living in any
way.
We who also have medical training have an intimate aquaintance with the
history of vaccine development. So we can analyse propaganda like this
post and tell you what is wrong with it --- three things.
1. Smallpox vaccine did have significant risks. It was more dangerous than
any modern vaccine, but it was still still less lethal and damaging than
smallpox epidemics. For many years all travellers had to undergo it.
2. Vaccinia was a live vaccine so that it probably was quite often
ineffective in the days before widespread refrigeration
3. No data is provided about any other vaccine to show that the risks
outweigh the benefits.
Any nitwit can understand that once you have had measles or polio and most
other epidemic illnesses, you are extremely unlikely to ever get it again.
Why should it be so difficult to understand how sensitising the immune
system artifically to viral proteins will confer some or all of that
immunity, depending on the vaccine, at far less risk than the actual
infection?
PM.
No one is making anything up to make a buck.
john
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message news:4AF0B6F0...@msu.edu...
>
> Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria
> entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines are
> absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases
> are has not been lost, either. That's why vaccines save lives.
>
> Jeff
4 Lies, breastfeeding is safe, and they say all the time vaccines are safe.
Vaccines don't prevent disease and don't save lives
john
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message news:4AF0B66B...@msu.edu...
>
> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective.
> They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the benefits
> greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines cause ADHD,
> autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am incorrect, please
> provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal articles.
>
Numerous lies
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children
does more harm than good."---Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine
Control Officer and research virologist, US FDA
dr_jeff
Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA
does such extensive studies.
jeff
john
> does such extensive studies.
>
> jeff
No he wasn't http://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html
"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers
of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them,
anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer
at the FDA)
john
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:007aa71f$0$26937
>
> We who also have medical training have an intimate aquaintance with the
> history of vaccine development. So we can analyse propaganda like this
> post and tell you what is wrong with it --- three things.
> 1. Smallpox vaccine did have significant risks. It was more dangerous
> than any modern vaccine, but it was still still less lethal and damaging
> than smallpox epidemics. For many years all travellers had to undergo it.
Absolute bollocks. Smallpox vaccine killed millions over 200 years
http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html
> 2. Vaccinia was a live vaccine so that it probably was quite often
> ineffective in the days before widespread refrigeration
> 3. No data is provided about any other vaccine to show that the risks
> outweigh the benefits.
Absolute bollocks, see smallpox vaccine above. As for MMR, see
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html
Mark Probert
So that they may be followed up to ensure that it is not a statistical
fluke. The perfect example was the origianl RotaShield vaccination
that was picked up as causing intussusception, was investigated and
this lead to the withdrawal of the vaccine.
I am not aware of any system in the realm of alternatives that can do
this.
It
> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> > You might want to talk
> > to your sponsors about that.
>
> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
Pontificating Blowhard NEEDS you to have sponsors.
Mark Probert
Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies,
etc. as I have opten pointed out.
Mark Probert
Actually, BIGOT, I would prefer that they encouraged people to have
their chidlren vaccinated with the safe and effective chicken pox
vaccine to prevent late onset herpes zozter.
However, you, being the anti-vac liar pro-infectious disease merchant
of disability and death, do not want children to be protected.
Mark Probert
Ilena did that so well, and no one can improve on that.
And, BIGOT, I will comment when I feel like it.
> You have failed to do so. That makes you a hypocrite, Jeffrey, Peter,
> Joseph Utz.-
Wrong. The fact that you, keeper of archives and master GoogleGroup
searcher, have been told that you are wrong.
That just makes you uneducable. And StOOOOOpid.
Mark Probert
> I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
> where is it?
Right there in PubMed. If your head was not as far up you ass as it
is, you would not be so blind and you could see it.
Peter Moran
news:75qdnfquNKXK72zX...@bt.com...
You can cut and paste all the opinions you want. I have lived through the
events described and know where the truth lies. In Australia there is
nothing other than vaccination that would explain the extraordinary change
in epidemic disease patterns over my lifetime.
We do get deaths from Pertussis and measles and diphtheria when vaccination
levels drop. This is the experience of all major countries. And it is
YOUR FAULT, through your attempts to create unreasonable fear of vaccines.
PM
john
>
> You can cut and paste all the opinions you want. I have lived through
> the events described and know where the truth lies. In Australia there
> is nothing other than vaccination that would explain the extraordinary
> change in epidemic disease patterns over my lifetime.
You sound like you are over 100.
You would say that being an Allopath.
"Compare these well vaccinated countries with Australia, the least
vaccinated country in the world. In 134 years, not one-fifth of the children
born have been vaccinated. Yet only three Australian children under five
have died of that disease. In the last 50 years, no child under five has
died of smallpox, and in the whole of her history, less than one person per
annum has died of it, although allowing five years protective period, only 2
per cent, of her population have ever been "protected." ---- M. BEDDOW
BAYLY M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
>
> We do get deaths from Pertussis and measles and diphtheria when
> vaccination levels drop. This is the experience of all major countries.
> And it is YOUR FAULT, through your attempts to create unreasonable fear of
> vaccines.
>
> PM
>
>
LOL! Absolute bollocks http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html
Peter Bowditch
Almost all autistic children have been breastfed before the onset of
autism. Coincidence? I think not.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
dr_jeff
> On Nov 3, 9:35 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> PeterB - Original wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> VAERS was made to address a particular
>>>> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
>>>> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>>> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
>>> vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
>>> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
>>> developed for those yet to be affected.
>> Of course not.
>
> Yes, the proper vetting of VAERS reports would permit a meaningful
> review of vaccine safety in those already affected.
No it wouldn't. Look at how the CDC went to Kaiser Permente to get data
about rotavirus vaccine safety when there were potential issues. The
database is not designed that way at all. Anyone can enter a report.
>> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
>> is being used.
>
> No kidding.
>
> Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
>> trials prior to licensure.
>
> I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
> where is it?
I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
jeff
Mark Probert
It is not his eyes that are closed. His mind is.
Jan Drew
Try http://www.google.com/ Not doc.
Jan Drew
> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message >
> > Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA
> > does such extensive studies.
>
> > jeff
>
>
> "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
> effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers
> of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them,
> anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer
> at the FDA)
Jeffey, Peter. Joseph Utz put to shame again
Jan Drew
Mark S Probert calling names again. Showing more proof he lied when
he posted he read Torah everyday.
Backs himself into a corner again. Open mouth insert both feet.
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor Mark S Probert. Whatever *opten* is.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif
Jan Drew
Hiow much is * Moree ??
Your words:
I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have
these people have a lesson.
So, you would love to see people sick?
That's one hate filled Jew.
And is very sad.
dr_jeff
Incorrect.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
Volume 357:1373-1381 October 4, 2007 Number 14
NextNext
Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly
Kristin L. Nichol, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., James D. Nordin, M.D., M.P.H.,
David B. Nelson, Ph.D., John P. Mullooly, Ph.D., and Eelko Hak, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Background Reliable estimates of the effectiveness of influenza vaccine
among persons 65 years of age and older are important for informed
vaccination policies and programs. Short-term studies may provide
misleading pictures of long-term benefits, and residual confounding may
have biased past results. This study examined the effectiveness of
influenza vaccine in seniors over the long term while addressing
potential bias and residual confounding in the results.
Methods Data were pooled from 18 cohorts of community-dwelling elderly
members of one U.S. health maintenance organization (HMO) for 1990�1991
through 1999�2000 and of two other HMOs for 1996�1997 through 1999�2000.
Logistic regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of the
vaccine for the prevention of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza
and death after adjustment for important covariates. Additional analyses
explored for evidence of bias and the potential effect of residual
confounding.
Results There were 713,872 person-seasons of observation. Most high-risk
medical conditions that were measured were more prevalent among
vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons. Vaccination was associated
with a 27% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or
influenza (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68
to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in the risk of death (adjusted odds ratio,
0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55). Estimates were generally stable across age
and risk subgroups. In the sensitivity analyses, we modeled the effect
of a hypothetical unmeasured confounder that would have caused
overestimation of vaccine effectiveness in the main analysis;
vaccination was still associated with statistically significant � though
lower � reductions in the risks of both hospitalization and death.
Conclusions During 10 seasons, influenza vaccination was associated with
significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or
influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly
persons. Vaccine delivery to this high-priority group should be improved.
Mark Probert
It is a typo, idiot. Don't you ever learn?
>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif- Hide quoted text -
Mark Probert
> Hiow much is * Moree ??
>
> Your words:
>
> I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have
> these people have a lesson.
>
> So, you would love to see people sick?
I would like to see them suffer the consequences of their anti-vac
lies.
Bob Officer
Scoffie's Law. Discussion is over. John loses
--
Bob Officer
Posting the truth
http://www.skeptics.com.au
t
t
not cause enough suffering yet, so he wants more.
"Mark Probert" <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b14cf54b-6550-4020...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
john
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> Almost all autistic children have been breastfed before the onset of
> autism. Coincidence? I think not.
>
Just a coincidence like all deaths and disease after vaccination ;0)
john
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
Who paid for that load of crap?
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/flu.html
dr_jeff
I don't know who pays for the crap on whale.to. However, the idiots who
believe the site do pay in the long, in shorter and less healthy lives.
PeterB - Original
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 9:35 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >> PeterB - Original wrote:
>
> >> <...>
>
> >>>> VAERS was made to address a particular
> >>>> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> >>>> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> >>> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> >>> vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> >>> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> >>> developed for those yet to be affected.
> >> Of course not.
>
> > Yes, the proper vetting of VAERS reports would permit a meaningful
> > review of vaccine safety in those already affected.
>
> No it wouldn't. Look at how the CDC went to Kaiser Permente to
> get data
> about rotavirus vaccine safety when there were potential issues.
> The database is not designed that way at all. Anyone can enter a
> report.
No database represents an evaluation of information stored, that is
why such reports are vetted. They are not vetted by the drug makers
because they cannot afford to uncover the truth about vaccine
hazards.
> >> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
> >> is being used.
>
> > No kidding.
>
> > Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
> >> trials prior to licensure.
>
> > I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
> > where is it?
>
> I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
Story telling and biographical vignettes do not constitute science.
I shudder to think that someone like yourself practices medicine,
assuming you do.
Peter B-Aboriginal
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee0c8931-9026-4877...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
Like your story about your dead cousin?
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ee0c8931-9026-4877...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
No, shit for brains. The other had provided those anecdotal accounts
in response to a challenge that he post the published science
supporting his belief that vaccines are safe and effective. I have
never said that my cousin's death represented a scientific assessment
of vaccine risk. Your limited intellectual grasp of the facts
notwithstanding, I have provided the published science showing vaccine
has not accomplished what its proponents believe it has, and so far,
those of your ilk have been unable to provide anything *but* anecdotal
reports to counter. Don't worry, no one is expecting you to break
the mold.
Jan Drew
Nice personal attack from one who is not a dr.
Otherwise he would have proved it by now.
Mark Probert
Hewy, STOOPID...here is an official site showing that Jeff had been
licensed as a medical doctor. Since a degree as an MD or DO is
required for licensing, he is absolutely entitled to refer to himself
as Dr.
Note that he has never represented that he actively practices.
dr_jeff
The data in the VAERS database are not vetted by anyone. Anyone may
enter a report, which then goes into the database.
>>>> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
>>>> is being used.
>>> No kidding.
>>> Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
>>>> trials prior to licensure.
>>> I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
>>> where is it?
>> I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
>
> Story telling and biographical vignettes do not constitute science.
> I shudder to think that someone like yourself practices medicine,
> assuming you do.
> =============================================
> Like your story about your dead cousin?
I don't have any dead cousins. They are still all living.
Jeff
Jan Drew
> On Nov 6, 2:36�am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:19 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > john wrote:
> > > > "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > Who paid for that load of crap?
>
> > > >http://www.whale.to/vaccines/flu.html
>
> > > I don't know who pays for the crap on whale.to. However, the idiots who
> > > believe the site do pay in the long, in shorter and less healthy lives.
>
> > Nice personal attack from one who is not a dr.
>
> > Otherwise he would have proved it by now.
>
> Hewy
Whatever *Hewy* is.
What part of *he* do you not understand?
>
> http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/free/publicinfo.asp?rb_name=ON&rb_facilit...
>
> Note that he has never represented that he actively practices.
Profession : Medicine Type : Medical Doctor - Educational Limited
Permanent ID # Status Issue Date Expiration Date
4301066017 Lapsed 07/01/1995 06/30/1997
FACT:
He is not a dr.
And, you are calling names again
Thus, you lied when you posted *I read torah everyday*.
And he lies he is not a dr.
Jan Drew
And now-- dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu>
Jan Drew
disbarred.
The, lied about it.
PeterB - Original
My point is that VAERS data *should* be vetted.
> >>>> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine
> >>>> is being used.
> >>> No kidding.
> >>> Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical
> >>>> trials prior to licensure.
> >>> I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong,
> >>> where is it?
> >> I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
>
> > Story telling and biographical vignettes do not constitute science.
> > I shudder to think that someone like yourself practices medicine,
> > assuming you do.
> > =============================================
> > Like your story about your dead cousin?
>
> I don't have any dead cousins. They are still all living.
You are responding to the other poster's comment to me, not mine.
Jan Drew
God help the people who do business with him.
He cannot even type.
Jan Drew
> > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > >>> and are depressed.
> > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> > >> articles.
>
> > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > > to prove such safety.
>
> > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
>
> > > responsibility to produce that data.
> > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> > your claims
>
> dr.
>
> You have failed to do so. �That makes you a hypocrite, Jeffrey, Peter,
> Joseph Utz.
Bob Officer
Jan Shrew, The Hypocrite! I have seen Jan make spelling and typing
errors
Bob Officer
Scoffie's Law
Jan Drew
Mark Probert
> On Nov 6, 9:29 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 2:36 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 8:19 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > john wrote:
> > > > > "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Who paid for that load of crap?
>
> > > > >http://www.whale.to/vaccines/flu.html
>
> > > > I don't know who pays for the crap on whale.to. However, the idiots who
> > > > believe the site do pay in the long, in shorter and less healthy lives.
>
> > > Nice personal attack from one who is not a dr.
>
> > > Otherwise he would have proved it by now.
>
> > Hewy
>
> Whatever *Hewy* is.
>
> What part of *he* do you not understand?
>
>
>
> >http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/free/publicinfo.asp?rb_name=ON&rb_facilit...
>
> > Note that he has never represented that he actively practices.
>
> Profession : Medicine Type : Medical Doctor - Educational Limited
> Permanent ID # Status Issue Date Expiration Date
> 4301066017 Lapsed 07/01/1995 06/30/1997
>
> FACT:
>
> He is not a dr.
When any doctorate degree is conferred on a person, they may, forever,
call themselves doctor.
For example, Betty Martini, the nut case who hates aspartame, calls
herself Dr. because she has an honorary one, that means she did not
attend class or study for it, from an unaccredited bible college.
She is legally entitled to do so.
So is Jeff, who attended classes, studied, and worked as a physician.
You do not like it, but, too damn bad.
> And, you are calling names again
Just trying to help you improve.
> Thus, you lied when you posted *I read torah everyday*.
> And he lies he is not a dr.-
See above,
Tikkun Olam
Mark Probert
Nonsense, that Jan whines about, deleted.
Mark Probert
Jan, I do not give a rqat's ass about the accuracy of my typing in the
newsgroup.
When my client's get a report, it is perfect.
You can whine awy, make like a moron, but, it only amuses me, and
everyone else.
You are quite pathetic.
Tikkun Olam
Mark Probert
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:47:47 -0800 (PST), in misc.health.alternative,
>
> > Whatever Moree is.
>
> >God help the people who do business with him.
>
> >He cannot even type.
>
> Jan Shrew, The Hypocrite! I have seen Jan make spelling and typing
> errors
They are merely amusing.
It is her comprehension errors that are strikingly stupid.