 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science 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. 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 ). <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. On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote: ><rant snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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-camp uses-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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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 > On May 10, 1:23 am, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Philadelphia, PA 19104. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. > 14(2):81-6, 1993 Feb. 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." >> >> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going >> >> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Am J Clin Nutr. > 1991;54(5):890-895. 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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.) | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> I really would like to know why in PeterB's Bizarro World why it is cheaper >> to not prevent diseases. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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." | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <f806340b-31c3-4394-9ddd-fb90e623c...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's why randomized studies are so useful -- they effectively control > for confounders you *don'* know about. No, the word "control" is inappropriate. You can't "control" for something you aren't measuring and the thing you *are* measuring can't be properly measured when you don't know how other factors affect your input data. We all know that you and your sponsors love ambiguity because that's how you sell the public on drug and vaccine marketing, but that isn't a substitute for good science. > >> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going > >> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > disease history, genetics, and other factors contributing to > disease epidemiology." Essential nutrients don't require the same threshold of evidence as pharmaceuticals because the risks of acute or chronic nutrient shortfalls are known to be life threatening. Pharamaceuticals, by contrast, are known to present dangerous side effects that often escape detection in their brief toxicologies by the drug makers. The fact that drug recalls and updates are often not accomplished before people die or until decades of elevated disease rates have been uncovered is a testament to the ethics of your sponsors. HRT is a prime example of such long-term side effects that have affected millions of women by shortening their lives. I know you don't read much off the newsgroups or research the archives here before posting, so evidence of a nutritional component in human disease must be forever surprising to you, but feel free to note the citation below. Glenn Fennelly, MD, Director, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Jacobi Medical Center; Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine: Risk factors for severe measles and its complications - Malnutrition - Underlying immunodeficiency - Pregnancy - Vitamin A deficiency ref: Semba RD. Vitamin A, immunity and infection. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;19:489-499. This study says that "…at least a dozen clinical trials have now demonstrated that vitamin A supplementation reduces severe morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases among children who have acute measles or who are from areas in which vitamin A deficiency is endemic." >> In message <f806340b-31c3-4394-9ddd-fb90e623c...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, PeterB wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > because that's how you sell the public on drug and vaccine marketing, > but that isn't a substitute for good science. Applying the above to your claims for nutritional efficacy, it becomes clear that you've been bullshitting all along -- because according to *YOU* it's impossible to determine the effects of nutrients without measuring the effects of individual genetics, familial history, personal history including exposure to radiation, environmental toxins, exercise, diseases, injuries, acquired dietary reactions, etc. So are you bullshitting now, or have you been bullshitting all along? >> >> (oh, and no amount of nutritional support is going >> >> to prevent measles, the 6% number comes from the USA, and if you want more [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Essential nutrients don't require the same threshold of evidence as By definition, special pleading. Thank you for admitting that you don't have the evidence that you demand of others. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ [to PeterB] : So are you bullshitting now, or have you been bullshitting all along? Can I safely assume that that was a rhetorical question? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@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 ----- "Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy > [to PeterB] > > : So are you bullshitting now, or have you been bullshitting all along? > > Can I safely assume that that was a rhetorical question? No, it was real. In context it's only established that one or the other is true; "both" is of course not ruled out. Formal disjunction. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ : Essential nutrients don't require the same threshold of evidence as : pharmaceuticals because the risks of acute or chronic nutrient : shortfalls are known to be life threatening. What is the medical condition associated with vitamin A deficiency? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@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 ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > 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 >> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science >> ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why Vaccination Continues > http://whale.to/vaccine/why_vaccination_continues.html 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 <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <m6KdnQeSVq2nEazVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdn...@bt.com>, JOHN wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There's nothing there that answers the question. False. > -- > D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> >>> So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how >>> exactly in the MMR a big money maker? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's nothing there that answers the question. it was the perfect answer, bit over your head obviously and 1 Billion in sales at a guess isn't exactly a bad income > >>> So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how > >>> exactly in the MMR a big money maker? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > it was the perfect answer, bit over your head obviously Not at all. There was nothing at the website that proves water has memory. > and 1 Billion in sales at a guess isn't exactly a bad income Willie Sutton made a lot of money the same way. On May 22, 3:01 am, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote: > "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in > messagenews:sdh8g5-er3.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > it was the perfect answer, bit over your head obviously Not at all. There was nothing at the website that proves water has memory. Which is another famous diversion. This thread is not about water and memory. > and 1 Billion in sales at a guess isn't exactly a bad income Willie Sutton made a lot of money the same way. ZZzz. Willie Sutton is not the subject, just ANOTHER DIVERSION. > On May 22, 3:01 am, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Not at all. There was nothing at the website that proves water has > memory. There IS no proof, YET that it does. For interesting research, try this: http://www.rustumroy.com/structure%20of%20water.htm Citizen Jimserac > > "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > There IS no proof, YET that it does. For interesting > research, try this:http://www.rustumroy.com/structure%20of%20water.htm The operative term, in your posting, YET, This is amusing. He seems to be the wet Boyd Haley. "Mark Probert" http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif >>>> So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how >>>> exactly in the MMR a big money maker? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > it was the perfect answer, bit over your head obviously In the sense that it was totally devoid of any facts, it was the perfect example of all of your answers. > and 1 Billion in sales at a guess isn't exactly a bad income I'd love to see you living on the proceeds from a billion in sales with 1.1 billion in costs. It is, as you say, not a bad income. | "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 <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >>>> So tell me, using some actual evidence and avoiding name calling: how >>>> exactly in the MMR a big money maker? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >and 1 Billion in sales at a guess isn't exactly a bad income Spread across how many companies? And "sales" is NOT the same as income. -- 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 >>> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science >>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > There's nothing there that answers the question. PS why do you trim the headers to just mha? > PS why do you trim the headers to just mha? Netiquette -- you wouldn't understand. | "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 <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science 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.) 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 > PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles > vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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 > > PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles > > vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac 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! On May 10, 8:09 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles > > > vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > working for a drug company intent on discrediting alternative > medicine. I always think that when I read either his posts or the Pontificating Blowhard's. On May 10, 8:09 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles > > > vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > coast of the USA plus the BC (Canada) and Mexico. > The rise and fall of a religion based on a regulation! You think I work for a drug company or else am a follower of Garner Ted Armstrong....? OK... NEXT posting. Citizen Jimserac >> PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles >> vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >How ASTONISHING that you should advocate this since YOU >see NO benefit in Homeopathy. Since there is no similarity between vaccination and homeopathy, why do you say this? > How primitive! How unscientific! >Surely you can't possibly understand the EXACT method [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >NOTHING IN the vaccine other than the dangerous >preservative chemicals. no, there are disabled virii in there as well. >When they do appear to work... it MUST be PLACEBO EFFECT!!!!!!!! Still shouting like a homeless psychiatric patient standing on the street corner telling us the end is neigh. >Citizen Jimserac > On Sat, 10 May 2008 03:59:24 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > >Citizen Jimserac You're RIGHT, I must be crazy to be answering YOUR postings... Citizen Jimserac >> PM> Smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio and measles >> vaccines were available during the time referred to (1900-75), and they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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 . > "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually > provide benefits. Where's YOUR evidence that they do??? Citizen Jimserac In misc.health.alternative Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> 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 schultr@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." > 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. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote: :> 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. And FDR was a better actor than any of us knew. I suppose that Itzhak Perlman's becoming a famous violinist was quid pro quo for his willingness to front for the "Polio Exists" conspiracy. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@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 ----- The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . . > In misc.health.alternative CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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..." In misc.health.alternative Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote: :> 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 schultr@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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote: : Well, child, the whole game of always asking "why?" no matter : what the answer was pretty clever at about two years old. More like three or four. After observation of an admittedly small sample of children at that age, I began to conjecture that for a small child, the game of always asking "why" isn't so much a way of being clever as it is a way of saying "I don't yet have the conversational tools to maintain a conversation, but I have discovered that asking 'why' is a guaranteed method of doing so." Which, if you think about it, appears to be a much more accurate assessment of CJ's mental level than accusing him of being clever would be. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@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's something I must tell you, there's something I must say: The only really perfect love is one that gets away. > In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > much more accurate assessment of CJ's mental level than accusing him > of being clever would be. That was exactly my point: it's a power game. I'll note that I got past that stage rather easily with my standard answer: "Because I'm mean and I'm nasty, I hate children, and I'm the worst father who ever lived." Sort of takes the fun out of it for the kids, but saved me no end of aggravation. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >> In misc.health.alternative D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote: >> : Well, child, the whole game of always asking "why?" no matter >> : what the answer was pretty clever at about two years old. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the worst father who ever lived." Sort of takes the fun out of it > for the kids, but saved me no end of aggravation. I forgot to mention the other one that you're probably more familiar with: "Why not?" | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ >. >> "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. -- 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 >>. >>> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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." | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <z5CdnVyGnclPlrTVnZ2dnUVZ_qPin...@comcast.com>, David Wright wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ Where are the links showing DIRECT and causal benefit? This is the same kind of proof folks ask me to demonstrate efficacy of Homeopathy - NOW IT'S THEIR TURN to provide proof! NOT SO EASY, IS IT? Citizen Jimserac >> In message <z5CdnVyGnclPlrTVnZ2dnUVZ_qPin...@comcast.com>, David Wright wrote: >> > In article <e912d4ed-55fd-4aaf-abd9-76c420d76...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> > CitizenJimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "Seem", eh? Where's your evidence that vaccines don't actually >> >>> provide benefits. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > NOT SO EASY, IS IT? Child, do your own homework. Citing the Francis study is like citing the Declaration of Independence: if you can't find it in dozens of places it's because you aren't looking. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <439d3ddf-350f-47a7-894a-23b900a69...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > like citing the Declaration of Independence: if you can't > find it in dozens of places it's because you aren't looking. First you implicitly tell me, you want to see double blind placebo tests of Homeopathy. I find a number of these, not a great number but some with positive results. I then point out the excellent results which Homeopathists seem to be getting in different areas of treatment and everyone exclaims OH NO, THAT's not proof. OK, read on... Next, you tell me, I believe, that vaccines work. So naturally I want to know about the double blind placebo studies for this system of treatment which is used on large masses of people. SUDDENLY, the standard changes - NOBODY seems to have these studies and everybody is going by the fact that the diseases treated by the vaccines seemed to have lessen. But the diseases are known to lessen after a prolonged outbreak OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, by the growth of immunity and for other reasons and therefore there is NO PROOF, in the same sense as everyone wants proof of Homeopathy's efficacy (and rightly so). NOW IT IS MY TURN, YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING unless you can produce those studies. Just as with Homeopathy,pointing to perceived results IS NOT PROOF. And if you say it is, then you must admit the same standard for Homeopathy and hence must accept it as a viable system of medicine. WHICH WILL IT BE? EITHER INVALIDATE VACCINATION OR ACKNOWLEDGE HOMEOPATHY? Citizen Jimserac >> In message <439d3ddf-350f-47a7-894a-23b900a69...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > and everyone > exclaims OH NO, THAT's not proof. I did? Please cite. IMHO doing a double-blind test of homeopathy is only slightly less justified than doing a double-blind test of exorcism. > Next, you tell me, I believe, that vaccines work. > So naturally I want to know about the double blind placebo studies for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and everybody is going by the fact that the diseases treated by the > vaccines seemed to have lessen. Again, you've been pointed towards the Francis study. It's possible to point a horse's arse to learning but one cannot make him think. > But the diseases are known to lessen after a prolonged outbreak OF > THEIR OWN ACCORD, by the growth of immunity and for other reasons and > therefore there is NO PROOF, in the same sense as everyone wants proof > of Homeopathy's efficacy (and rightly so). Has anyone mentioned to you that IT'S f.cking RUDE TO CONSTANTLY SHOUT AT PEOPLE? > NOW IT IS MY TURN, YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING unless you can > produce those studies. Just as with Homeopathy,pointing > to perceived results IS NOT PROOF. And if you say it is, > then you must admit the same standard for Homeopathy > and hence must accept it as a viable system of medicine. Child, take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting and MAYBE YOU'LL NOTICE PEOPLE POINTING YOU AT THE FRANCIS STUDY. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ OH! The "Francis" study...? I repeat from another thread my comments on it: OK the Francis report. Double blind placebo test... good! Large population sample... good! And, as expected, those getting the vaccine showed lower incidence of polio, by far, than the placebo group. So far so good but... (You just know there is going to be a but...) How in the hell did it end up that those getting the placebo, if I recall it was colored water... how did THEY end up getting a higher incidence of polio than that part of the sample that got no vaccinations. Second, after all the hoopla over results which were known in advance to be APPARENTLY favorable... could you explain how the vaccine got "tainted" which outraged the public and led many to avoid it and the "booster" shots. (additional comment not in other thread ->) and yet the polio "epidemic" continued to subside... Third, why exactly were the "booster" shots needed? Fourth - could you explain the tradeoff between the extent and manner in which the virus was disabled and the effectiveness of the vaccine. As I understand it, if the virus is not disabled enough, then you are injecting live polio virus into a person giving them a good chance of getting the disease and if you "disable" it too much it will not suffice to stimulate the immune system to produce the antibodies. Lastly, this test, convincing though it may be to some, was done in the mid 1950's. What about virus mutations? How many studies have been done on this scale since then... none? I note with interest that in 1987 a newer and more "potent" form of the deactivated virus was developed (see web page mentioned below). What happened, the 1954 version not good enough or was this a de facto admission that the 1954 version of the deactivated virus was ineffective? This single test is NOT enough to convince me that the vaccine alone accomplished anything other than to make some people sick. RATHER, an equally likely explanation is that the widespread publicity about the disease made people pay more attention to hygeine (fecal contamination was one mode of transmission), food preparation and especially sewage control (see web page mentioned below). I NOW direct YOUR attention to the following excellent web page from Brown University describing the characteristics, structure and mode of transmission of the virus. http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects1999/polio/polweb.html Those who BLINDLY rely on a single test are advised to educate themselves as to the details of this virus, its mode of transmission, etiology and structure. I was surprised to learn, for example, that there are three main "strains" of the virus and it appears that the geometric structure has been worked for only two of them, the "Mahoney" strain and the "Sabin" strain (which is the deactivated virus). Next I learn that poliomyelitis progresses to paralysis in LESS THAN 1 IN 100 CASES. In many the symptoms are no more severe than that of the common cold and the virus has no other effect. I also see that to this day there is NO cure for the disease. I will REITERATE that point to help it sink in - there is NO known cure for the disease in standard medicine. What about Homeopathy? Let us assume, just for this moment, that there is a valid mechanism for Homeopathic action. I know some of you disagree violently with that and that the theory of Homeopathy is the subject of ongoing research. It's "controversial". I love that expression because it hides the fear that it might work in a "polticially correct" expression. I direct your attention to the following web page (see below) which discusses the use of Homeopathy in epidemics. But, first a comment - by the late 1950's, I'm guessing there were probably no more than 200 practicing Homeopaths in the entire U.S.. Why is that? Answer: Because there was for decades prior to that, a concerted attempt to kill an entire system of medicine. Starting even before the era of the Flexner report, various official organizations lobbied political and governmental agencies and legislatures to ban essentially ban ALL alternative medicine as nonsense. This included the eventual shutting down of nuermous medical colleges of Homeopathy - colleges the curricula of which, I might add, were almost identical to M.D. medical colleges with the exception that Homeopathy was included. Happily, in Arizona the return of Homeopathic medical colleges is already well underway but that is the subject of a different thread. To continue, here is the web page: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,40 from the National Center for Homeopathy regarding the use of Homeopathy for epidemic diseases. Here are the comments regarding polio: "Closer to our present time, there were the Polio epidemics in the mid-1950s. Dr. Alonzo Shadman, a homeopath in the Boston area, emphasized that until *actual paralysis* was observed, it was hard to distinguish the prodromal symptoms of Polio from those of the common cold -- and he treated many "summer colds" during the time. Were they incipient polio? No one can tell." "Dr. Francisco Eizayaga of Argentina, tells of a polio epidemic in Buenos Aires in 1957, where the symptoms of the epidemic resembled those of the remedy Lathyrus sativa. The homeopathic doctors and pharmacies prescribed Lathyrus 30c as a prophylactic, and "thousands of doses" were distributed. "Nobody registered a case of contagion." Eizayaga points out that in other epidemics of polio, Gelsemium was the indicated remedy -- emphasizing, again, the need for individualization." "Homeopathy has been very effective in treating many of the epidemics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Why the successes are not better known is a subject for conjecture." Does this mean that Homeopathy had a cure for polio all along? Of course not. What it means is that some of the respondents of this newsgroup, for example YOU D.C., have made the error of placing ALL of your faith in the Francis study and accepting blindly its conclusion that the vaccine itself was responsible for the elimination of the disease - a specious conclusion. YOU have accepted, almost without question, the utilization of a single test methodology indeed on a large population sample I will admit, but that is NOT sufficient to draw any useful conclusions given the nature of the disease itself. Rather, what bothers me is that everyone, relying on the supposed utility of the vaccines, stopped the search for a cure and how long will it be before some "mutation" of this virus, which evades the antibodies, appears and a newer even "stronger" vaccine is needed - and another... and another???? By an incredible coincidence, is this not EXACTLY the same type of problem with using antibiotics against bacteria and the "resistance" which their targets eventually form? I suggest that Homeopathy and its research be allowed to continue because THEY are apparently the only ones working on or that have suggested a cure for the disease and substances which can be taken as a viable prophylaxis - both of which, astoundingly, standard medicine does not appear to have bothered with. Citizen Jimserac > > In message <439d3ddf-350f-47a7-894a-23b900a69...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > and everybody is going by the fact that the diseases treated by the > vaccines seemed to have lessen. No, nitwit, the standard did not change. Double blind, placebo controlled studies are best suited for evaluating the effectiveness of medications. Vaccines are not medications, and, the double blind study is not well suited for evaluating them. Briefly, the difference is the period of action. A medication needs to act quickly to be useful, while a vaccine needs to work over a period of time. Double blind studies test the effectiveness of immediate action and cannot effectively test the effectiveness of something that is long acting. I doubt that you will understand this. > But the diseases are known to lessen after a prolonged outbreak OF > THEIR OWN ACCORD, by the growth of immunity and for other reasons and > therefore there is NO PROOF, in the same sense as everyone wants proof > of Homeopathy's efficacy (and rightly so). > > NOW IT IS MY TURN, YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING He has proven that you are a moron. Actually, he didn't, but you did. But, I will give him credit. unless you can > produce those studies. Just as with Homeopathy,pointing > to perceived results IS NOT PROOF. And if you say it is, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > No, nitwit, the standard did not change. Double blind, placebo > controlled studies are best suited for evaluating the effectiveness of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > action and cannot effectively test the effectiveness of something that > is long acting. Sure they can. They are. I don't know where you get the idea that long-term double-blind studies aren't done -- there are far too many examples to the contrary, the Francis field trial being a good example. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ On May 14, 10:05 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> . > I don't know where you get the idea that long-term double-blind > studies aren't done -- there are far too many examples to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ My quote of comments criticizing the "Francis" report never got posted, let's try again: from http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=252526 Comment from a registered member: " By request. Polio Statistics and related thoughts 1955, Journal of American Statistical Assn 50: 1005- 1013 stated of the Francis report Quote: 59% of the trial was worthless because of lack of adequate controls. The remaining 41% may have been alright, but contains internal evidence of bias in favour of the vaccinated. He also pointed out that Quote: the initial decision (later changed) to vaccinate all willing second graders and to use the nonvolunteer second graders and all first and third-grade children as uninoculated controls nearly invalidated the 1954 trials... Placebo-inoculated volunteers eexperienced significantly more disease than did age-comparable unvaccinated nonvolunteers" This was as per my observation in the previous pos regarding the increased incidence of polio in those vaccinated with the placebo than in the control group with no vaccinations at all. What's this D.C., reverse placebo effect? But there is more, highly critical of the report you seem to regard as the "Holy Grail" of vaccinations: Lancet April 23, 1955, p 851 reported on the Francis report Quote: Bulbospinal paralysis, 81 - 94% protection. Spinal paralytic form 60 % protection. Non-paralytic form, NIL protection Which, frankly, doesn't make sense, but never mind. [author's comment, not mine, but I agree]. BMJ, April 30, 1955 says about the Francis Report, that large sections of the trial were subject to doubtful procedures, open to criticism; for instance Quote: 1) innoculated children on one large section were not the same age as the uninnoculated controls 2) childrren to be innoculated were those whose parents agreed to have it done. It is recognised amongst statisticians involved in similar assessments that the social position and care in volunteer families are usually superior to that in controls Finally, most damning of all: "What is more interesting still, is the fact that Dr Sabin, of the Sabin vaccine "fame" in an article in Skope Weekly, January 21, 1959, page 4, cited studies illustrating the unpredictable immune response of children given a full series of Salk Inoculations. Five months after the third dose, 44% were eithout demonstrable antibody for Type 1 poliovirus, while 53% were without type 3. In terms of serum levels sufficient to yield antibody in nasopharyngeal excretions, inadequate titers were found in 78% for Type 1, and 84% for Type 3. Quoted in the Tri State Medical Journal, February 1959, :The folly in the continued use of a killed polio virus vaccine" Fred. R. Klenner. The other interesting bit is a letter from England in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 163, No 2, January 12, 1957 which stated that Quote: an analysis of the figures (Salk Polio Vaccine) shows that the incident of paralytic cases among the vaccinated children who had poliomyelitis was 40% as compared with 44% among the unvaccinated children." which makes a monkey of the protection stats for paralytic polio in the Francis trials...." D.C., I'm afraid even Richard with his statistical magic, cannot save this damning data which REFUTES the validity of the Francis report and the efficacy of the polio vaccines. Sorry! Citizen Jimserac > My quote of comments criticizing the "Francis" report never got > posted, let's try again: Yes, they did. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <85c33e12-62a3-4273-b70a-37dda2f6c...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac wrote: > > > My quote of comments criticizing the "Francis" report never got > > posted, let's try again: > > Yes, they did. Don't ruin a not-so-good conspiracy. > In message <7b58bc4a-a906-42ec-afe6-479e78d93...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > studies aren't done -- there are far too many examples to the > contrary, the Francis field trial being a good example. I was thinking the long term reduction of disease as the result of vaccinations. It would take a very long time for the results to roll in, and there are better methods. And, more ethical ones. > > In message <7b58bc4a-a906-42ec-afe6-479e78d93...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And, more ethical ones. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - a fallacy; Oh god forbid! Did I just respond to Mark Probert, oh no.... Re-instituting ban. Citizen Jimserac > > > In message <7b58bc4a-a906-42ec-afe6-479e78d93...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac- Too bad, Jimmie. And, add not knowing what a logical fallacy is to that ever growing list of things you are utterly clueless about. > 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? > 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. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message