The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
PeterB
The availability of reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS), combined with the drug makers' aversion to careful
study of this data, as well as commonly experienced side effects of
vaccine, are important reasons for the decline in the confidence of
the public in mass vaccination programs. That public health
authorities have been largely absent from the scientific debate about
the merits of vaccination, while engaging in co-marketing alongside
the pharmaceuticals (whose former executives often make up the ranks
of management at those bureacracies), has not inspired the public to
take a different view. Here are some facts about vaccine
effectiveness and safety that you may not know.
Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in
infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was
concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2) Aside from the fact that use of
vaccine *after* those declines does not represent a proven association
to treatment, the remainder of the decline must be largely attributed
to factors *other* than vaccine since it cannot be that such factors
already in play during a longstanding downward trendline in severe
morbidity suddenly ceased just because vaccine came into use. For
obvious reasons, the absence of evidence that vaccine was responsible
for a substantial decline in infectious disease mortality means that
vaccine can hardly take credit for reductions in severe morbidity that
lead to death. What little evidence there may be for vaccine efficacy
(much less safety) outside the laboratory where the value of antibody
titres is largely theoretical (antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity), remains highly suspect. That antibody levels induced by
vaccine are demonstrably lower than those following natural infection
has also been scientifically documented.(3)
Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it occurs)
are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies
that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as
nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted
outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse
health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown.
According to MerckSource, "many cases of mumps are subclinical,"
whereas numerous studies have documented vaccine induced symtpoms,
including fever, rash, hearing loss, chills, headache, and other flu-
like effects. (5,6,7) This is perfect cover for the drug makers, who
haven't been required to demonstrate a risk-benefit analysis of MMR
through a careful study of vaccine despite millions of willing
subjects.
Remember that when industry Pharma hoods talk about the necessity for
"herd immunity," they are broadcasting a promotion for vaccine, not
science. When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't
cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't
exist.
1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical
Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the
Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live,
attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a
field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up
surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated
measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med
1979;162:328-32.
5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with
immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy
Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after
measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of
Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further
Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
Also see http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.
Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the
decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not*
ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine
(which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their
statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to
public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to
medical measures in total, not to a particular program or
intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in
reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void
the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will*
attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine
was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
during the last 100 years.
HCN
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
.................................................................
So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how
exactly in the MMR a big money maker?
It has been in use in the USA since 1971, and has never contained
thimerosal. Since uptake has declined more people are coming down with the
actual disease (and measles). Not terribly far from where I live eight kids
from an unvaccinated family came down with measles, with three of them
ending up in the hospital.
So I did some digging and came up with some numbers. From here:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm ... I found
out that giving a child two doses of the MMR costs $100 (that is the private
sector price, not the cheaper public one).
Then I looked up some costs of hospital stays for measles and found this:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1307536&pageindex=4
It seems the hospitalization costs for measles (in 1990 dollars) range from
about $4000 to over $10000, with the average at around $8000 (in 1990
dollars, it would be much more now!).
Now from this it says about 6% of measles cases end up in the hospital:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf
Now Generation Rescue has put out a recommended vaccine schedule which does
not include the MMR at all (even though their big thing is to call autism
another form of mercury poisoning, but there is no thimerosal in the MMR!).
So if the public decided to do what they said, measles would come back and
everyone would get it! Just like the good ol' days (and what is happening
now in Canada, Switzerland, USA, Japan, Austria, UK... etc, etc). Remember,
the new anti-vax spokesmommy Jenny McCarthy said she would rather have had
her son get measles than the MMR.
So... If a community decided to NOT spend the $100000 to vaccinate 1000
children with the MMR, then when they did get the disease approximately 60
(6% of 1000) would end up in the hospital for pneumonia (not counting the
smaller percentage for meningitis nor encephalitis). If you multiply $8000
by 60, then the costs associated with the disease (not counting the costs of
the 1 to 3 who would need further assistance due to blindness and/or
deafness, nor the funeral expenses of the estimated one or two who don't get
to go home) would be $480000.
Or about 4 to 5 times more than it cost for the vaccines would go to
hospitals for medication, monitoring equipment, respiratory support (much of
it sold by "Big Pharma") and medical care professionals. Remember, I used
1990 for hospitalization costs, with 2008 numbers for vaccine costs. The
actual ratio between letting kids end up in the hospital versus giving them
the vaccine may be 10 to 15 times more.
This does not take into account infections from mumps (four out of less than
3000 mumps cases became deaf,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5520a4.htm ... plus over 800
young men may be sterile), or from problems with pregnant women getting
rubella, causing congenital rubella syndrome.
More reading here:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/12/1136
I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is cheaper
to not prevent diseases. (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more
recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system,
and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after
investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme
prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning into
Wonder Woman: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342 ).
Peter Moran
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Also see http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.
PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles
vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they
remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious disability)
from these sources in the USA today.
PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and enteric
infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental change in our
susceptibility to infectious disease.
PM
HCN
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
...
.... When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
>more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't
>cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't
>exist.
That is an interesting accusation, especially in this post. While I used
references that had actual URLs to real papers (not just the abstracts),
PeterB chose to just list the name of the paper. I looked at them, and some
could not be found, but others by the same authors were. The references are
classic cases of cherry picking. For a further explanation of this kind of
tactic see:
http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
Let's see what we have here...
>
>1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical
>Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the
>Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
Ooooh, a paper from what looks like a mutual fund write-up, dated over 30
years ago! Let me put the title into Google and see what pops up...
Exactly one hit, a Jan Drew post citing this paper:
http://www.archivum.info/sci.med/2006-09/msg00393.html
>
>2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
>Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
This is a textbook:
http://www.amazon.com/Public-Health-Crossroads-Achievements-Prospects/dp/0521586658
Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the page
before a new chapter. According to Google books it is a sectioncalled
"Explaining Trends in Mortality".
PeterB did not specify which edition.
>
>3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live,
>attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a
>field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
Yet another timely paper, only 41 years old. It even predates the MMR!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6016060? ... not even an abstract
available!
>
>4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up
>surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated
>measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med
>1979;162:328-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/515009 ... again, no abstract available.
This is even though searching for "Weibel RE" brings up papers with
abstracts like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263873 that say "The
patterns of antibody persistence 7.5 years after administration of combined
measles-mumps-rubella (M-M-R) and mumps-rubella (Biavax) vaccines, 6 years
after administration of measles-rubella vaccine (M-R-VAX), and 4 years after
administration of measles-mumps vaccine (M-M-VAX) were the same as for the
monovalent vaccines, indicating no alteration in the retention of immunity.
Subclinical reinfection evidenced by increase in homologous antibody titer
was observed to follow vaccination the same as occurs after natural
infection."
and this whole paper:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=4719108
>
>5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with
>immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy
>Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
I had to dig deep for this! Dr. Sakaguchi has been very prolific, I had to
the 25th page of PubMed hits to find this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560672 ... again, no abstract available.
Yet, he (or she) is the primary author of this fully available paper on
allergic reactions to vaccine components:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10233707
... and it is basically the same subject!
(by the way, Japan uses a different MMR than the one used in the USA, and
now the UK, so even if you were trying to baffle with bullshit, you chose
the wrong bovine!).
>
>6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after
>measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of
>Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
Oh, my word! This paper is actually available:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8024302
It is a series of case reports. In six of the cases the MMR was the older
UK version with the Urabe strain of mumps, not the Jeryl Lynn of the version
approved for use in 1971 in the USA and now used in the UK.
>
>7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further
>Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
>
Just an abstract available of some case reports:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6633364 from 1982... again, not terribly
timely.
So in summary: While I found papers and references that were fully online
and included the URLs, PeterB chose to just list the paper title. That is
not so bad, except he chose obscure papers from an author who had a full
paper online on the same subject. He also listed stuff on vaccines not
available in the USA (when Japan had an MMR, it was not the same as the
American version), and he chose some papers that were case reports from
decades ago.
Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles infection
from 1990. But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major measles
outbreak. Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB Handley and
the
>Also see http://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.
Now this wants us to go and read something by a supplement salesman named
Blaylock. More about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell_Blaylock
... and it is all about reading one paragraph in a textbook... but it does
not explain the declination of measles between 1972 and 1981!
From
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf
the incidence of measles in the USA went from 75000 to 3124, and the number
of measles deaths went from 90 to 2. Try your funny numbers game there.
And while you are at it: please explain why the numbers of measles has been
going UP in Japan, Austria, the UK and Switzerland (along with the USA and
Canada).
HCN
"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:XZqdnWIGKMko3rjV...@comcast.com...
>
I was interrupted by family members and did not finish a thought...
...> Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles
infection
> from 1990. But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major
> measles outbreak. Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB
> Handley and the new autism anti-vax spokesbimbo Jenny McCarthy we shall
> soon repeat the experience we had between 1989 and 1992 when over 120
> Americans died from measles.
It seems you guys forget that there was a reason for the development of
vaccines in the first place. Have you ever seen a case of diphtheria? Do
you know that it is one of the reasons for the Iditarod dog sled race in
Alaska? Or that a child died from diphtheria recently in the UK?
See
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1210231700148?p=1204186170287
Did you even know it is the "D" part of the DTaP vaccine? And that it
doesn't take long for it to return when vaccination schedules are delayed:
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00022128.htm
Do you remember polio? Have you heard of the "March of Dimes"? Here is
their history page:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/789.asp
Some recommended reading:
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/polio.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Polio-American-David-M-Oshinsky/dp/0195307143/
http://www.amazon.com/Cutter-Incident-Americas-Vaccine-Growing/dp/0300108648/
Citizen Jimserac
>
> Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
> discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
> a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the
> decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
> introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
> century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not*
> ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine
> (which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their
> statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to
> public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to
> medical measures in total, not to a particular program or
> intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in
> reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void
> the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will*
> attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
> sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine
> was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
> during the last 100 years.
OUTSTANDING and interesting post!
Many thanks,
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles
> vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they
> remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious disability)
> from these sources in the USA today.
>
> PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and enteric
> infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental change in our
> susceptibility to infectious disease.
>
> PM
USING a tiny "disabled" virus to stimulate the body's immune system?
How ASTONISHING that you should advocate this since YOU
see NO benefit in Homeopathy. How primitive! How unscientific!
Surely you can't possibly understand the EXACT method
of how this works and are going ONLY by the positive
results that vaccine SEEM to provide.
In fact, since the viruses are "disabled" there is really
NOTHING IN the vaccine other than the dangerous
preservative chemicals.
When they do appear to work... it MUST be PLACEBO EFFECT!!!!!!!!
Citizen Jimserac
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Sorry Citizen you are wrong. Just because a vaccine is "disabled"
doesn't mean
it can't provoke an immune response and an immunity memory.
Indeed, a healthy vitamin replete individual is more likely to benefit
in that they are more likely to form a stronger immune response.
While it is true some vaccines have problems especially the further
back one goes in history, they general speaking do tend to prevent
disease. I will grant they are hardly the only tool in
the public health arsenal. Both soap and treated drinking water
which reduce exposure to germs also help in a big way to prevent
disease.
Your position to me seems so outlandish as to make me think you
working for a drug company intent on discrediting alternative
medicine.
Or perhaps you are an old line follower of G.T. Armstrong? (Deceased
minor religion leader who presented himself as a latter day
John the Baptizer.) GTA called vaccines monkey pus as I dimly
recall. Back in the Day he preached his message on powerful
AM broadcasts. Since that era the federal government has
reduced the maximum power of AM broadcasts. After night
fall a high power AM broadcast as once permitted could reach the whole
west
coast of the USA plus the BC (Canada) and Mexico.
The rise and fall of a religion based on a regulation!
Mark Probert
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
>
> ...
> .... When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
>
> >more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't
> >cite real evidence documenting their claims. It's because it doesn't
> >exist.
>
> That is an interesting accusation, especially in this post. While I used
> references that had actual URLs to real papers (not just the abstracts),
> PeterB chose to just list the name of the paper. I looked at them, and some
> could not be found, but others by the same authors were. The references are
> classic cases of cherry picking. For a further explanation of this kind of
> tactic see:http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
>
> Let's see what we have here...
>
>
>
> >1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. The Questionable Effect of Medical
> >Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the
> >Twentieth Century. Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
>
> Ooooh, a paper from what looks like a mutual fund write-up, dated over 30
> years ago! Let me put the title into Google and see what pops up...
> Exactly one hit, a Jan Drew post citing this paper:http://www.archivum.info/sci.med/2006-09/msg00393.html
>
>
>
> >2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
> >Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
>
>
> Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the page
> before a new chapter. According to Google books it is a sectioncalled
> "Explaining Trends in Mortality".
>
> PeterB did not specify which edition.
>
>
>
> >3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live,
> >attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a
> >field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51
>
> Yet another timely paper, only 41 years old. It even predates the MMR!
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6016060? ... not even an abstract
> available!
>
>
>
> >4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up
> >surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated
> >measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med
> >1979;162:328-32.
>
>
> This is even though searching for "Weibel RE" brings up papers with
> patterns of antibody persistence 7.5 years after administration of combined
> measles-mumps-rubella (M-M-R) and mumps-rubella (Biavax) vaccines, 6 years
> after administration of measles-rubella vaccine (M-R-VAX), and 4 years after
> administration of measles-mumps vaccine (M-M-VAX) were the same as for the
> monovalent vaccines, indicating no alteration in the retention of immunity.
> Subclinical reinfection evidenced by increase in homologous antibody titer
> was observed to follow vaccination the same as occurs after natural
> infection."
>
>
>
>
> >5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with
> >immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy
> >Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
>
> I had to dig deep for this! Dr. Sakaguchi has been very prolific, I had to
> Yet, he (or she) is the primary author of this fully available paper on
> ... and it is basically the same subject!
> (by the way, Japan uses a different MMR than the one used in the USA, and
> now the UK, so even if you were trying to baffle with bullshit, you chose
> the wrong bovine!).
>
>
>
> >6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Reports of sensorineural deafness after
> >measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of
> >Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
>
>
> It is a series of case reports. In six of the cases the MMR was the older
> UK version with the Urabe strain of mumps, not the Jeryl Lynn of the version
> approved for use in 1971 in the USA and now used in the UK.
>
>
>
> >7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further
> >Australian reports." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
>
> timely.
>
> So in summary: While I found papers and references that were fully online
> and included the URLs, PeterB chose to just list the paper title. That is
> not so bad, except he chose obscure papers from an author who had a full
> paper online on the same subject. He also listed stuff on vaccines not
> available in the USA (when Japan had an MMR, it was not the same as the
> American version), and he chose some papers that were case reports from
> decades ago.
>
> Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles infection
> from 1990. But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major measles
> outbreak. Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB Handley and
> the
>
>
> Now this wants us to go and read something by a supplement salesman named
> Blaylock. More about him here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell_Blaylock
>
> ... and it is all about reading one paragraph in a textbook... but it does
> not explain the declination of measles between 1972 and 1981!
>
> the incidence of measles in the USA went from 75000 to 3124, and the number
> of measles deaths went from 90 to 2. Try your funny numbers game there.
>
> And while you are at it: please explain why the numbers of measles has been
> going UP in Japan, Austria, the UK and Switzerland (along with the USA and
> Canada).
>
>
>
>
>
> >Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
> >discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
> >a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the
> >decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
> >introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
> >century. In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were *not*
> >ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine
> >(which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) Their
> >statement that various health measures were of “major importance” to
> >public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to
> >medical measures in total, not to a particular program or
> >intervention, whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in
> >reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void
> >the earlier observation. Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will*
> >attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
> >sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine
> >was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
excellent! Superb!
You proved, beyond any doubt, what I have said for so long...
PB stands for *P*ontificating *B*lowhard.
Mark Probert
I always think that when I read either his posts or the Pontificating
Blowhard's.
Citizen Jimserac
You think I work for a drug company or else am a follower
of Garner Ted Armstrong....?
OK... NEXT posting.
Citizen Jimserac
Jan Drew
Richard Schultz
: excellent! Superb!
When you quote 165 lines of text in order to add five of your own, it
is vitally important that one of those five be "ME TOO!"
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Richard Schultz
: Researchers have found that 3.5%, at most, of the decline in
: infectious disease mortality during the period 1900 to 1975, was
: concomitant with use of vaccine.(1,2)
This is a lie.
: Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
: discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
: a period of time. The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of the
: decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
: introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
: century.
The sentence containing the 3.5% figure does *not* include any reference
to vaccination, while the succeeding one specifically lists vaccination
as an example of something that *was* important.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Richard Schultz
:>2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
:>Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
:
: Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the page
: before a new chapter. According to Google books it is a sectioncalled
: "Explaining Trends in Mortality".
You can find the page in question by using the search feature and look
for "43," which will enable you to get to page 43. You will find that
Peter-the-cowardly-B is seriously misrepresenting the content of the book.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
HCN
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:g05veu$jio$4...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In misc.health.alternative HCN <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> :>2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
> :>Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
> :
> : Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the
> page
> : before a new chapter. According to Google books it is a sectioncalled
> : "Explaining Trends in Mortality".
>
> You can find the page in question by using the search feature and look
> for "43," which will enable you to get to page 43. You will find that
> Peter-the-cowardly-B is seriously misrepresenting the content of the book.
>
Thanks. I was pretty sure that it was being misrepresented because there
were two editions where Page 43 was something different in each table of
contents.
HCN
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
>sponsors require of them, but it won’t ‘t change the fact that vaccine
>was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
>during the last 100 years.
You will note that PeterB declines to respond during the weekend. That is
because he has admitted to being paid by his supplement company to post his
silliness on Usenet. He claims we are all "Pharm Shills". He can't
comprehend many of us only come here for our own entertainment.
I think it would be amusing to see him in a court of law being asked this
question:
Q: And tell us exactly how you knew that these people who posted on Usenet
were being paid by pharmaceutical companies?
A: Because they kept posting stuff I did not like, and what they wrote cut
into my supplement sales.
Jan Drew
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
> Peter-the-cowardly-B > Richard Schultz
Off-topic.
Jan Drew
David Wright
Citizen Jimserac <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 9, 10:41 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles
>> vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they
>> remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious disability)
>> from these sources in the USA today.
>>
>> PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and enteric
>> infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental change in our
>> susceptibility to infectious disease.
>>
>> PM
>
>USING a tiny "disabled" virus to stimulate the body's immune system?
>How ASTONISHING that you should advocate this since YOU
>see NO benefit in Homeopathy. How primitive! How unscientific!
Despite the desperate pleadings of the homeopathy enthusiasts,
vaccination is not homeopathic. Vaccines do not become stronger and
stronger the more you dilute them. Furthermore, the whole idea of
homeopathy was to find something that had the same results as the
illness, but was different. Since the virus is, in fact, the cause of
the disease, this departs from the model rather severely.
>Surely you can't possibly understand the EXACT method
>of how this works and are going ONLY by the positive
>results that vaccine SEEM to provide.
"Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually
provide benefits.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
-- John Dolan
PeterB
Our words identify our motives. Readers have to decide for themselves
who is defending a profit motive and who isn't. A review of my
history on mha reveals my purpose is to advocate the use of natural
medicine and that basic nutrition alone treats, cures, and prevents
most human diseases. Your posting history reveals your contrary
purpose as a defender of pharmaceutical products, practices, and false
advertising.
PeterB
>
<rant snipped>
>
> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is cheaper
> to not prevent diseases.
First, you have to prove that MMR is actually preventive. You haven't
done that. Post a link to double-blind RCTs demonstrating the effects
of vaccine that use appropriate filters for nutritional status, immune
function, disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to
disease epidemiology.
> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more
> recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
Nonsense. Nutritional status as a factor in infectious disease
resistance is well documented by health authorities world wide,
continues to be cited by WHO as a key to prevention *and* treatment
(vitamin A) even where frank deficiencies are not apparent. By
contrast, projections of infectious transmission are just that --
projections.
> I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system,
> and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after
> investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme
> prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning into
> Wonder Woman: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342).
Would you care to cite your sources for investigation of VAERS
incidents? I didn't think so.
PeterB
>
> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles
> vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and
> they remain the main reason for the rareness of death (and serious
> disability) from these sources in the USA today.
The studies cited above prove the falsity of that belief. MMR didn't
exist until 1963 when 95% of measles mortality had already been
quashed. Giving credit to vaccine for the tiny fraction of
*continuing* declines in severe morbidity after a decade of such
declines is like waving your arms out the back of a caboose and
believing you have magically affected the direction of travel.
> PM >The ease with which we get colds, influenza, venereal and and
> enteric infections *proves* there has been no other fundamental
> change in our susceptibility to infectious disease.
You must not know that USDA-directed vitamin fortification programs
beginning mostly in the 1930s and 1940s were most effective at
reducing several population level diseases. Ever heard of rickets and
goiter?
Richard Schultz
: Our words identify our motives.
Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such studies.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Citizen Jimserac
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Our words identify our motives.
>
> Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
> I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
> benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
> even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such studies.
>
At least you mention that there are risks,
that is something but...
Could you please use some new fractured quotes at the end of your
posts - we do get tired of reading
the same old ones, the thirst in the ocean ones
and the "you don't have a clue ones"?
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
.
>
> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually
> provide benefits.
>
Where's YOUR evidence that they do???
Citizen Jimserac
Richard Schultz
: On May 11, 8:26 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
:> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually
:> provide benefits.
: Where's YOUR evidence that they do???
How do *you* explain the decrease in the number of cases of polio in the U.S.
that occurred in the years following the introduction of the polio vaccine?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Richard Schultz
:> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
:> : Our words identify our motives.
:> Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
:> I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
:> benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
:> even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such
:> studies.
: At least you mention that there are risks, that is something but...
There is a risk in getting out of bed in the morning. In many cases,
the benefits of getting out of bed in the morning outweigh the risks.
There are risks associated with taking aspirin, but in many cases, the
benefits outweigh the risks. What part of that is too difficult for you
to understand?
: Could you please use some new fractured quotes at the end of your
: posts - we do get tired of reading
: the same old ones, the thirst in the ocean ones
: and the "you don't have a clue ones"?
I will gladly post some new quotes for you just as soon as you either
(a) give a reference to a post in which I included a .sig quote that
comes from _Alice in Wonderland_ or (b) give some evidence that you at
least have a clue about which clue you are missing.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It's certainly easy to mock things," agreed Trefusis. "Oddly enough
though I've never found it easy to mock anything of value. Only things
that are tawdry and fatuous -- perhaps it's just me."
D. C. Sessions
> The studies cited above prove the falsity of that belief. MMR didn't
> exist until 1963 when 95% of measles mortality had already been
> quashed. Giving credit to vaccine for the tiny fraction of
> *continuing* declines in severe morbidity after a decade of such
> declines is like waving your arms out the back of a caboose and
> believing you have magically affected the direction of travel.
"A decade of such declines" is such an interesting example of bullshit.
By all means tell us about the declines in measles during the 1954-1963
decade and compare them to the declines between 1964 (when the vaccine
started being used) through 1973.
Simple statistics are adequate, no need to be fancy -- just present
the mean and per-year reductions for 54-63 vs. the mean and per-year
reductions for the following decade, for instance.
If the US data aren't to your taste, you could do the same for any
country that kept reasonably complete records.
--
| Shit happens. Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+
D. C. Sessions
> How do *you* explain the decrease in the number of cases of polio in the U.S.
> that occurred in the years following the introduction of the polio vaccine?
There's always the DrCee version: polio was just a trumped-up scare to
push the sale of the vaccine that was scheduled to arrive in the 50s.
The ventilators, for instance, were just stage dressing.
HCN
On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
><rant snipped>
>>
>> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is
>> cheaper
>> to not prevent diseases.
>
>First, you have to prove that MMR is actually preventive. You haven't
>done that. Post a link to double-blind RCTs demonstrating the effects
>of vaccine that use appropriate filters for nutritional status, immune
>function, disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to
>disease epidemiology.
Why did you snip out all of my links?
Well, here are some more:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18357755?
>> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
>> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want
>> more
>> recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
>
>Nonsense. Nutritional status as a factor in infectious disease
>resistance is well documented by health authorities world wide,
>continues to be cited by WHO as a key to prevention *and* treatment
>(vitamin A) even where frank deficiencies are not apparent. By
>contrast, projections of infectious transmission are just that --
>projections.
uh, yeah: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mandi/51/9/805/_pdf
oh, and Japan is such a nutritionally deficit third world country (not):
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japanese-measles-epidemic-brings-campuses-to-standstill/2007/05/27/1180205052602.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
>> I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system,
>> and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after
>> investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme
>> prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning
>> into
>> Wonder Woman: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342).
>
>Would you care to cite your sources for investigation of VAERS
>incidents? I didn't think so.
>
Again I ask, why did you snip out all of the URLs I posted?
Well, here is another one:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/153/12/1279
HCN
On May 11, 2:08 pm, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >because he has admitted to being paid by his supplement company to post
> >his
> >silliness on Usenet. He claims we are all "Pharm Shills". He can't
> >comprehend many of us only come here for our own entertainment.
>>
>who is defending a profit motive and who isn't. A review of my
>history on mha reveals my purpose is to advocate the use of natural
>medicine and that basic nutrition alone treats, cures, and prevents
>most human diseases. Your posting history reveals your contrary
>purpose as a defender of pharmaceutical products, practices, and false
>advertising.
Did you have a nice weekend? Sorry, I can't play any more on this Monday
morning, I have some real work to do before I go to class.
D. C. Sessions
> Did you have a nice weekend? Sorry, I can't play any more on this Monday
> morning, I have some real work to do before I go to class.
That's the difference. PB is coming on-shift now, just as you are.
The difference is that MHA *is* his job.
D. C. Sessions
> On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is cheaper
>> to not prevent diseases.
>
> First, you have to prove that MMR is actually preventive. You haven't
> done that. Post a link to double-blind RCTs demonstrating the effects
> of vaccine that use appropriate filters for nutritional status, immune
> function, disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to
> disease epidemiology.
That's why randomized studies are so useful -- they effectively control
for confounders you *don'* know about.
>> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
>> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more
>> recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
>
> Nonsense. Nutritional status as a factor in infectious disease
> resistance is well documented by health authorities world wide,
> continues to be cited by WHO as a key to prevention *and* treatment
> (vitamin A) even where frank deficiencies are not apparent. By
> contrast, projections of infectious transmission are just that --
> projections.
Of course you have studies to back up this claim that measles incidence
is affected by "nutritional status." Since you think it matters, by all
means include the controls for "immune function, disease history, genetics,
and other factors contributing to disease epidemiology."
--
David Wright
Dear boy, the sudden and precipitous decline in diseases like mumps,
measles, and polio following the introduction of vaccination makes
questions like yours simply silly.
PeterB
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f806340b-31c3-4394...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><rant snipped>
>
> >> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is
> >> cheaper
> >> to not prevent diseases.
>
> >First, you have to prove that MMR is actually preventive. You haven't
> >done that. Post a link to double-blind RCTs demonstrating the effects
> >of vaccine that use appropriate filters for nutritional status, immune
> >function, disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to
> >disease epidemiology.
>
> Why did you snip out all of my links?
>
> Well, here are some more:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18357755?
Yes, people are still getting measles. That's the point. I suspect
the numbers are much, much higher than what is reported. Vaccine bias
has not been able to sweep all outbreaks in vaccinated populations
under the rug. Hhere are a few reports substantiating these
occurences.
Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific
immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated adolescents and young
adults. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical
Center, Washington, DC 20007. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
13(1):34-8, 1994 Jan.
Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and
evaluation of a selective revaccination strategy. Department of
Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Medical Association Journal. 150(7):1093-8, 1994 Apr 1.
Secondary measles vaccine failure in healthcare workers exposed to
infected patients. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia, PA 19104. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.
14(2):81-6, 1993 Feb.
> >> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
> >> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want
> >> more
> >> recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
>
> >Nonsense. Nutritional status as a factor in infectious disease
> >resistance is well documented by health authorities world wide,
> >continues to be cited by WHO as a key to prevention *and*
> >treatment
> >(vitamin A) even where frank deficiencies are not apparent. By
> >contrast, projections of infectious transmission are just that --
> >projections.
>
> uh, yeah: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mandi/51/9/805/_pdf
Also, according to University of Maryland Medical Center:
"...children deficient in vitamin A are more likely to DEVELOP [CAPS
for emphasis] infections (including measles). Vitamin A deficiencies
also cause such infections to be more severe, even fatal. Vitamin A
supplements reduce the severity and complications of measles in
children. Vitamin A also reduces the risk of death in infants with
this disease (especially in those who have low levels of the vitamin).
In areas of the world where vitamin A deficiency is widespread or
where at least 1% of those with measles die, the World Health
Organization recommends giving high doses of vitamin A supplements to
children with the infection."
ref: Coutsoudis A, Broughton M, Coovadia HM. Vitamin A
supplementation reduces measles morbidity in young African children:
a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Am J Clin Nutr.
1991;54(5):890-895.
> oh, and Japan is such a nutritionally deficit third world country (not):http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japanese-measles-epidemic-...
Your logical fallacy that outbreaks of measles is somehow proof of the
effectiveness of vaccine is quite amusing. Using that logic, I could
prove the effectiveness of rain dancing, or eating peanut butter
before a winning game. Good for a laugh, though.
> >> I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system,
> >> and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after
> >> investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme
> >> prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning
> >> into
> >> Wonder Woman:http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342).
>
> >Would you care to cite your sources for investigation of VAERS
> >incidents? I didn't think so.
>
> Again I ask, why did you snip out all of the URLs I posted?
>
> Well, here is another one:http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/153/12/1279
And here's one from that same server documenting the use of Vitamin A
in treating measles complications. It describes use of this vitamin
in measles in a study evaluating children in New York city. The
result was almost a 50% reduction in hospitalization. Such a
dramatic reduction in severe morbidity would necessarily represent a
huge reduction in mortality, don't you agree?
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/2/18
D. C. Sessions
> In article <e912d4ed-55fd-4aaf...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Citizen Jimserac <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 11, 8:26 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
>>.
>>> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually
>>> provide benefits.
>>
>>Where's YOUR evidence that they do???
>
> Dear boy, the sudden and precipitous decline in diseases like mumps,
> measles, and polio following the introduction of vaccination makes
> questions like yours simply silly.
Or for that matter my standing challenge. After all, those
cases you cite *might* have been coincidence. After all, the
drop in measles in the USA corresponded with introduction of
indoor plumbing or some such. However, if it's coincidental
then there should be examples *somewhere* that that coincidence
didn't happen, don't you think?
Or, to take the question seriously, "look up the Francis study
and get back to us when you have finished reading the full
report."
D. C. Sessions
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "people sometimes
get measles despite having been vaccinated decades earlier" and
"measles vaccine doesn't work."
The cited paper says nothing of the sort. In fact, the study cited
started off with a study group that already had not only measles,
but pneumonia *and* diarrhea. Part of the study screen was to
exclude any patients who showed signs of vitamin A deficiency,
and another part of the study results showed that the patients'
reserves of vitamin A were not exhausted (the placebo group had
a rebound of serum retinol on day 8, which shows that they still
had reserves.)
Another case of PB not only citing papers which don't say what
he claims they do, but even provide evidence at contradicting
his advertised claims.
> And here's one from that same server documenting the use of Vitamin A
> in treating measles complications. It describes use of this vitamin
> in measles in a study evaluating children in New York city. The
> result was almost a 50% reduction in hospitalization. Such a
> dramatic reduction in severe morbidity would necessarily represent a
> huge reduction in mortality, don't you agree?
> http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/2/18
Vitamin A certainly is better than a severe case of untreated pneumonia.
Of course, all things considered it's even better to not get the
measles in the first place -- and for that the best approach is to
wipe out the virus. Vitamin A isn't going to do that, and vaccines
are well on their way to getting the job done. (One hemisphere down,
one to go.)
PeterB
>
> : Our words identify our motives.
>
> Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
> I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
> benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
> even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such studies.
You have never cited a study showing that aspirin increases human
lifespan at all, thus your claims amount ot a lie.
Richard Schultz
:> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
:> : Our words identify our motives. ?
:> Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
:> I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
:> benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
:> even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such
:> studies.
: You have never cited a study showing that aspirin increases human
: lifespan at all, thus your claims amount ot a lie.
(1) Provide a citation to a post in which I claimed that it did (not to
one in which you bizarrely reinterpret what I wrote). If you can.
(2) Explain what, in your opinion, the authors of the two studies that
I cited were talking about when they discussed the benefits of taking
aspirin. Are you suggesting that the odds that a stroke will significantly
shorten a patient's lifespan are not higher than the odds that a
gastrointestinal hemorrhage will significantly shorten a patient's lifespan?
Is so, what evidence do you have for that claim? If not, in what sense is
the conclusion that "at least two recurrent strokes could prevented at
the cost of one gastrointestinal haemorrhage" (Derry and Loke, p. 1186)
*not* equivalent to saying that taking aspirin increases the lifespan
of someone at risk for recurrent stroke?
Citizen Jimserac
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> : On May 12, 1:25?am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> : Our words identify our motives. ?
>
> :> Yes, one has to wonder at your motives when you accused me of lying when
> :> I referred to studies that show that in at least some cases, the
> :> benefits of aspirin use outweigh the risks, and your motives in refusing
> :> even to acknowledge the post in which I gave you two examples of such
> :> studies.
>
> : You have never cited a study showing that aspirin increases human
> : lifespan at all, thus your claims amount ot a lie.
>
> (1) Provide a citation to a post in which I claimed that it did (not to
> one in which you bizarrely reinterpret what I wrote). If you can.
>
> (2) Explain what, in your opinion, the authors of the two studies that
> I cited were talking about when they discussed the benefits of taking
> aspirin. Are you suggesting that the odds that a stroke will significantly
> shorten a patient's lifespan are not higher than the odds that a
> gastrointestinal hemorrhage will significantly shorten a patient's lifespan?
> Is so, what evidence do you have for that claim? If not, in what sense is
> the conclusion that "at least two recurrent strokes could prevented at
> the cost of one gastrointestinal haemorrhage" (Derry and Loke, p. 1186)
> *not* equivalent to saying that taking aspirin increases the lifespan
> of someone at risk for recurrent stroke?
Human life is beyond statistics Richard, there are FUNDAMENTAL flaws
in your approach to these matters.
Life is not a solution or chemical compound.
Your response fails to mention OTHER deleterious effects of aspirin -
lower blood pressure, its dangerous effects on some children, AND, its
long term use damage to cartilage, in addition to the admitted
gastrointestinal problems.
The American College of Gastroenterology has a good link covering the
gastrointestinal issues - including asymptomatic ulcers. The
statistics of the articles you mentioned, and your own blind approach
to statistical averages in evaluating medicine, does not take THAT,
for example, into consideration. What if the person who has an ulcer
but has no symptoms and will NEVER get a stroke is taking aspirin long
term. This person is slowly killing themself with the aspirin
intended to do some good. Statistically you might say isignificant
but try telling that to that person.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac
> In misc.health.alternative CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On May 11, 8:26 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
>
> :> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually
> :> provide benefits.
>
> : Where's YOUR evidence that they do???
>
> How do *you* explain the decrease in the number of cases of polio in the U.S.
> that occurred in the years following the introduction of the polio vaccine?
CONTRARIWISE, my dear Richard you shock me because I don't believe
that YOU can provide me with the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO tests to prove
your assertion at all.
IS this some sort of DOUBLE STANDARD - you expect double blind placebo
studies for Homeopathy but NOT for PROOF THAT VACCINATION WORKS?????
As PeterB stated, and I quote from his recent post:
"Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it
occurs)
are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies
that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as
nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted
outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse
health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown".
I've seen NOBODY, not you or anyone else challenge PeterB's assertion
and if you do not and cannot, then his point is made.
And now, following Richard's excellent lead,
I will institute a little closing "quote" of my own!
Citizen Jimserac
"There are more things between Heaven and Earth, Richardio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy..."
Mark Probert
> On May 12, 10:47 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f806340b-31c3-4394...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > ><rant snipped>
>
> > >> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is
> > >> cheaper
> > >> to not prevent diseases.
>
> > >First, you have to prove that MMR is actually preventive. You haven't
> > >done that. Post a link to double-blind RCTs demonstrating the effects
> > >of vaccine that use appropriate filters for nutritional status, immune
> > >function, disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to
> > >disease epidemiology.
>
> > Why did you snip out all of my links?
>
> > Well, here are some more:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18357755?
>
> Yes, people are still getting measles.
During this recent outbreak in the US, those people are properly
called UNVACCINATED.
That's the point. I suspect
> the numbers are much, much higher than what is reported.
Of course you would. Why deal with facts when a nice conspiracy allows
you to leap over the logic and reach your conclusion?
Vaccine bias
> has not been able to sweep all outbreaks in vaccinated populations
> under the rug. Hhere are a few reports substantiating these
> occurences.
>
> Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific
> immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated adolescents and young
> adults. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical
> Center, Washington, DC 20007. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.
> 13(1):34-8, 1994 Jan.
Did you read the original study? Doubtful.
> Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and
> evaluation of a selective revaccination strategy. Department of
> Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Ont.
> Canadian Medical Association Journal. 150(7):1093-8, 1994 Apr 1.
Did you read the original study? Doubtful.
> Secondary measles vaccine failure in healthcare workers exposed to
> infected patients. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of
> Philadelphia, PA 19104. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.
> 14(2):81-6, 1993 Feb.
Did you read the original study? Doubtful.
What you did is to do a PubMed search and find studies that contained
keywords 'measles' 'vaccine' 'failure'.
> > >> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going
> > >> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want
> > >> more
> > >> recent stuff check out Japan and Austria).
>
> > >Nonsense. Nutritional status as a factor in infectious disease
> > >resistance is well documented by health authorities world wide,
> > >continues to be cited by WHO as a key to prevention *and*
> > >treatment
> > >(vitamin A) even where frank deficiencies are not apparent. By
> > >contrast, projections of infectious transmission are just that --
> > >projections.
>
> > uh, yeah: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mandi/51/9/805/_pdf
>
> Also, according to University of Maryland Medical Center:
> "...children deficient in vitamin A are more likely to DEVELOP [CAPS
> for emphasis] infections (including measles). Vitamin A deficiencies
> also cause such infections to be more severe, even fatal. Vitamin A
> supplements reduce the severity and complications of measles in
> children. Vitamin A also reduces the risk of death in infants with
> this disease (especially in those who have low levels of the vitamin).
> In areas of the world where vitamin A deficiency is widespread or
> where at least 1% of those with measles die, the World Health
> Organization recommends giving high doses of vitamin A supplements to
> children with the infection."
"areas of the world" are NOT western countries with high rates of
vaccination.
> ref: Coutsoudis A, Broughton M, Coovadia HM. Vitamin A
> supplementation reduces measles morbidity in young African children:
> a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Am J Clin Nutr.
> 1991;54(5):890-895.
>
> > oh, and Japan is such a nutritionally deficit third world country (not):http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japanese-measles-epidemic-...
>
> Your logical fallacy that outbreaks of measles is somehow proof of the
> effectiveness of vaccine is quite amusing. Using that logic, I could
> prove the effectiveness of rain dancing, or eating peanut butter
> before a winning game. Good for a laugh, though.
That is what is called a strawman. A logical fallacy on your part, and
further proof that you lack knowledge and facts to support your
arguments.
> > >> I would also like to remind him that VAERS is a passive reporting system,
> > >> and is not really a good statistical measure. Especially since after
> > >> investigation the cause is often found to be something else (like extreme
> > >> prematurity, congenital heart condition, rolling off a couch or turning
> > >> into
> > >> Wonder Woman:http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342).
>
> > >Would you care to cite your sources for investigation of VAERS
> > >incidents? I didn't think so.
>
> > Again I ask, why did you snip out all of the URLs I posted?
>
> > Well, here is another one:http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/153/12/1279
>
> And here's one from that same server documenting the use of Vitamin A
> in treating measles complications. It describes use of this vitamin
> in measles in a study evaluating children in New York city. The
> result was almost a 50% reduction in hospitalization. Such a
> dramatic reduction in severe morbidity would necessarily represent a
> huge reduction in mortality, don't you agree?http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/2/18- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
D. C. Sessions
> Human life is beyond statistics Richard, there are FUNDAMENTAL flaws
> in your approach to these matters.
> Life is not a solution or chemical compound.
How would you propose to design an experiment to test that
hypothesis?
Richard Schultz
:> How do *you* explain the decrease in the number of cases of polio in
:> the U.S. that occurred in the years following the introduction of the
:> polio vaccine?
: CONTRARIWISE, my dear Richard you shock me because I don't believe
: that YOU can provide me with the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO tests to prove
: your assertion at all.
Does it bother you even a teeny tiny bit that you quite obviously do not
know what you are talking about?
I suggest that you reread what I wrote, and continue doing so until such
time as it dawns on you that what you wrote is a complete non sequitur.
(Hint: my "assertion," such as it was, was of a fact the confirmation of
which involves nothing more complicated than counting. If you believe
that the "assertion" is false, then you have to give some evidence supporting
your belief.)
When you reach that point of enlightenment, then you might want to
consider answering the question that was asked.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit." -- La Rochefoucald
Richard Schultz
:> : You have never cited a study showing that aspirin increases human
:> : lifespan at all, thus your claims amount ot a lie.
:> (2) Explain what, in your opinion, the authors of the two studies that
:> I cited were talking about when they discussed the benefits of taking
:> aspirin. Are you suggesting that the odds that a stroke will significantly
:> shorten a patient's lifespan are not higher than the odds that a
:> gastrointestinal hemorrhage will significantly shorten a patient's lifespan?
:> Is so, what evidence do you have for that claim? If not, in what sense is
:> the conclusion that "at least two recurrent strokes could prevented at
:> the cost of one gastrointestinal haemorrhage" (Derry and Loke, p. 1186)
:> *not* equivalent to saying that taking aspirin increases the lifespan
:> of someone at risk for recurrent stroke?
: Human life is beyond statistics Richard, there are FUNDAMENTAL flaws
: in your approach to these matters.
: Life is not a solution or chemical compound.
In what sense is reducing the likelihood of a stroke for someone at
risk for a stroke not equivalent to increasing his life expectancy?
: Your response fails to mention OTHER deleterious effects of aspirin -
: lower blood pressure, its dangerous effects on some children, AND, its
: long term use damage to cartilage, in addition to the admitted
: gastrointestinal problems.
I realize that logical thinking is simply not in your skill set, which is
why I show you far more patience than you deserve. Also, your mastery
of the non sequitur is really a wonder to behold. In case you weren't
paying attention -- as appears to be the case -- I made a particular claim,
namely, that in *some* cases, it can be shown that the benefits of taking
aspirin outweigh the risks. Peter-the-cowardly-Bee disputed that claim,
and I provided references to two studies that concluded that in *some*
cases, it can be shown that the benefits of taking aspirin outweigh the
risks.
Now here's the clever bit -- this is the part where logical reasoning
comes into play. The observation that something is true in *some* cases
*does not* imply that it is true in *all* cases. Since I never claimed
that the benefits of taking aspirin *always* outweigh the risks, and
since your examples are irrelevant to the cases that I cited, your
response is what is known in the business as a "non sequitur."
I realize that the line of reasoning given in the previous two paragraphs
is completely beyond you, and hence will be ignored by you; but I include
them to illustrate to someone who probably can understand the argument
(say, a reasonably bright twelve-year-old) just how you failed to
understand it.
: The American College of Gastroenterology has a good link covering the
: gastrointestinal issues - including asymptomatic ulcers. The
: statistics of the articles you mentioned, and your own blind approach
: to statistical averages in evaluating medicine, does not take THAT,
: for example, into consideration.
I have offered on many, many occasions to explain to you the statistical
problems involved with using clinical studies to assess the efficacy of
a particular treatment. Your lack of interest in the subject implies
what your response demonstrates -- you have no understanding whatsoever
of statistics or how to apply them properly.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
D. C. Sessions
> CONTRARIWISE, my dear Richard you shock me because I don't believe
> that YOU can provide me with the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO tests to prove
> your assertion at all.
> IS this some sort of DOUBLE STANDARD - you expect double blind placebo
> studies for Homeopathy but NOT for PROOF THAT VACCINATION WORKS?????
You've already been pointed at the mother of all studies.
You also have obviously not bothered to read it, which means
that answering more challenges like it is an exercise in
hoop-jumping.
As below:
> As PeterB stated, and I quote from his recent post:
> "Estimates of the duration of vaccine-induced immunity (when it
> occurs)
> are based on little more than field surveys, not controlled studies
> that adjust for factors unique to a particular demographic, such as
> nutritional status, age, or prior disease history. Any risk-adjusted
> outcomes related to mass vaccination (especially in terms of adverse
> health effects attributable to vaccine) remain largely unknown".
In other words, "we can keep making up more and more hurdles to
throw at you forever, each an excuse to deny that you have met
the always-receding goal of having enough evidence to support
your point." PB was good enough to admit today that this is
a total double standard and only applies to those with whom he
disagrees.
Well, child, the whole game of always asking "why?" no matter
what the answer was pretty clever at about two years old.
For those who haven't outgrown being amused by conversational
power games, I wish you happiness.
Citizen Jimserac
I have dealt with the "Francis" report
in my response to D.C..
In response to your comments, I need make
only one observation.
It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
that standard medicine does not have a
cure for the common cold.
I submit that any system of medicine
which cannot even handle that, has fundamental
flaws in its philosophy.
That does not mean invalid or ineffective because
modern medicine has done many great
things, particularly in surgery and in
many other areas. Just flawed.
I submit that Homeopathy, if proven,
provides the missing link, the alternative
viewpoint which is superior to the
totally reductionistic approach in handling
problems of the above mentioned kind.
In the LONG run, reductionism works but
the minutiae of nature are, as you must know,
sufficiently complex so that it might take
centuries for the final answer to be found,
if ever.
That's just my opinion - no statistics,
no clever quotes, no appeals to authority,
no insults are needed.
See how easy that is!
Looking forward to your next quote,
your humble respondent,
Citizen Jimserac
Richard Schultz
: It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
I have this funny feeling that you don't know what the word "bemused" means.
: that standard medicine does not have a
: cure for the common cold.
So what?
: I submit that any system of medicine which cannot even handle that, has
: fundamental flaws in its philosophy.
I submit that if you are not actually a moron, you do one heck of a
good job imitating one.
: I submit that Homeopathy, if proven, provides the missing link, the
: alternative viewpoint which is superior to the totally reductionistic
: approach in handling problems of the above mentioned kind.
I submit that until such time as you take the trouble to learn some basic
chemistry and biology, your opinions about homeopathy are worthless.
: That's just my opinion - no statistics, no clever quotes, no appeals
: to authority, no insults are needed.
Can you point out a single example of my having used an appeal to authority?
: See how easy that is!
Much easier than, say, learning something.
: Looking forward to your next quote,
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that I have ever posted
an article to m.h.a. containing a .sig quote taken from _Alice
in Wonderland_.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
D. C. Sessions
> It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
> that standard medicine does not have a
> cure for the common cold.
>
> I submit that any system of medicine
> which cannot even handle that, has fundamental
> flaws in its philosophy.
And here we are, back to the "if it isn't perfect it's
no good at all."
Well, dear child, please apply that to homeopathy.
Citizen Jimserac
> In misc.health.alternative CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
>
> I have this funny feeling that you don't know what the word "bemused" means.
>
> : that standard medicine does not have a
> : cure for the common cold.
>
> So what?
So what??
> : I submit that any system of medicine which cannot even handle that, has
> : fundamental flaws in its philosophy.
>
> I submit that if you are not actually a moron, you do one heck of a
> good job imitating one.
Ah my dear Richard, before the unknown,
we are all morons.
> : I submit that Homeopathy, if proven, provides the missing link, the
> : alternative viewpoint which is superior to the totally reductionistic
> : approach in handling problems of the above mentioned kind.
>
> I submit that until such time as you take the trouble to learn some basic
> chemistry and biology, your opinions about homeopathy are worthless.
Believe me I'm working on that right now!!
> : That's just my opinion - no statistics, no clever quotes, no appeals
> : to authority, no insults are needed.
>
> Can you point out a single example of my having used an appeal to authority?
...
> I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that I have ever posted
> an article to m.h.a. containing a .sig quote taken from _Alice
> in Wonderland_.
I would love to discuss your creative quote fabrications and the
appeals to authority, I know your opinions are important to you, but I
must move on alas...
However, I will try, when time permits, to post
some comments about the "Francis" report which
DOES involve statistics and your opinions will always be welcome in
that thread.
I remain in awe of your resolute certainty
and creative resources,
a humble admirer,
Citizen Jimserac
Richard Schultz
:> In misc.health.alternative CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> : It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
:>
:> I have this funny feeling that you don't know what the word "bemused" means.
:>
:> : that standard medicine does not have a
:> : cure for the common cold.
:>
:> So what?
:
: So what??
What part of that was too difficult for you to grasp?
:> : I submit that any system of medicine which cannot even handle that, has
:> : fundamental flaws in its philosophy.
:>
:> I submit that if you are not actually a moron, you do one heck of a
:> good job imitating one.
:
: Ah my dear Richard, before the unknown, we are all morons.
There is a difference between "Things that CJ does not know" and "Things
that are unknown." That you insist on conflating the two is fairly good
evidence that if you are not a moron, you do one heck of a job imitating
one.
:> : I submit that Homeopathy, if proven, provides the missing link, the
:> : alternative viewpoint which is superior to the totally reductionistic
:> : approach in handling problems of the above mentioned kind.
:>
:> I submit that until such time as you take the trouble to learn some basic
:> chemistry and biology, your opinions about homeopathy are worthless.
:
: Believe me I'm working on that right now!!
Why don't you come back after you've learned some basic chemistry and
biology and give us your opinions then?
:> : That's just my opinion - no statistics, no clever quotes, no appeals
:> : to authority, no insults are needed.
:>
:> Can you point out a single example of my having used an appeal to authority?
I didn't think so.
:> I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that I have ever posted
:> an article to m.h.a. containing a .sig quote taken from _Alice
:> in Wonderland_.
:
: I would love to discuss your creative quote fabrications and the
: appeals to authority, I know your opinions are important to you, but I
: must move on alas...
In other words, you now admit that when you said that you recognized one
of my .sig quotes as having come from _Alice in Wonderland_, you were
wrong. I have no idea what you mean by "creative quote fabrications."
If you are accusing me of fabricating quotes, that is, claiming to be
quoting someone when I am not, then I would be most interested in your
providing a specific example.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
Jan Drew
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote :
snip insults
In misc.health.alternative Citizen Jimserac <Jims...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : It is stated often, and almost bemusedly,
>
> : that standard medicine does not have a
> : cure for the common cold.
>
> So what?
>
> : I submit that any system of medicine which cannot even handle that, has
> : fundamental flaws in its philosophy.
>
> : That's just my opinion - no statistics, no clever quotes, no appeals
> : to authority, no insults are needed.
>
> : See how easy that is!
>
> : Looking forward to your next quote,
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz
JOHN
"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DPudnUl8QLGnrLjV...@comcast.com...> news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
> .................................................................
>
> So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how
> exactly in the MMR a big money maker?
>
Why Vaccination Continues
http://whale.to/vaccine/why_vaccination_continues.html
D. C. Sessions
There's nothing there that answers the question.
--
| "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against |
| unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct |
| before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson |
+-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+