Re: Opinions on Echinacea

In article <1123853914.560881.10690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article <1123700043.135376.270390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >cathyb wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As Petey must know, what I actually posted was:
>> >>
>> >> "People are intuitively very bad at risk assessment Jan--they waste
>> >> money on lottery tickets, where the chances of winning are millions to
>> >> one, instead of keeping money in a bank where they are guaranteed a
>> >> (small) rate of return. And they take the relatively high risk of their
>> >>
>> >> kids dying or being impaired by diseases, because they are frightened
>> >> of the much, much smaller risk of vaccine damage.
>> >
>> >What's your evidence that a "relatively high risk of kids dying or
>> >being impaired by diseases" follows not being vaccinated? And how do
>> >you know the risk of vaccine damage is "much, much smaller?" The world
>> >is waiting for you to enlighten us.
>>
>> If we work from something like VAERS data to get our risk estimates
>> for vaccines, and we use ordinary mortality/morbidity statistics for
>> diseases, are you suggesting that the case for not vaccinating is
>> stronger? Have you even bothered to check?
>>
>> Taking measles as an example, someone pointed out the other day that
>> in the US, measles mortality per year was in the hundreds; claimed MMR
>> mortality per year in VAERS is under a dozen. How's that for
>> starters?
>
>The problem is that VAERS doesn't adjust for the rate of attrition. We
>don't know how many of these deaths represent children who were
>vaccinated but contracted measles and died anyway. If both occured, it
>isn't ethical to attribute mortality to measles alone when immunization
>(sic) was concomitant.

But with numbers of these relative magnitudes, it also doesn't matter.
Even if all half-dozen or so of the VAERS cases were actually killed
by the vaccine, or even if they all caught measles and died solely of
that, the *overall* improvement is so great that it makes no
difference.

Unless you can show that measles vaccine is doing something perfectly
awful to those receiving it, the efficacy and value of vaccination is
a closed question, and vaccination is good.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"There's nothing to be afraid of -- this is America!" I said,
realizing instantly that this was the funniest line I had
ever spoken. -- Jack Douglas
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MEASLES CASES BY YEAR
    ... is the table with measles cases and deaths (prior to measles ... You said the vaccine was approved in 1963 and started *widespread* use ... responsible for stemming all those measles deaths is what you are ... measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... >>> If we work from something like VAERS data to get our risk estimates ... >>> mortality per year in VAERS is under a dozen. ... >>vaccinated but contracted measles and died anyway. ... > Unless you can show that measles vaccine is doing something perfectly ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... measles mortality per year was in the hundreds; ... >> mortality per year in VAERS is under a dozen. ... >>>vaccines has magically morphed into a huge campaign designed to thwart ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: MEASLES CASES BY YEAR
    ... measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, ... that there is a difference between the *incidence* of a disease and the ... Is that supposed to be an argument for vaccine affecting measles ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: MEASLES CASES BY YEAR
    ... measles mortality during the 1950s is not in question, ... that there is a difference between the *incidence* of a disease and the ... Is that supposed to be an argument for vaccine affecting measles ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
Loading