Re: Opinions on Echinacea

In article <1124375206.595195.116450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> 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.
>
>It matters, and for other important reasons. What is the evidence that
>declines in incidence of measles is related to vaccination and not to
>improvements in nutritional status? Established clinical data links
>contraction and severity of measels to deficiency of vitamin A, whereas
>vitamin A was used to dramatically lower mortality from measles prior
>to use of antibiotics.

And it still is, in places like Africa, where malnutrition is
widespread. However, you're being deliberately obtuse, I think. The
drop in measles cases was enormous and rapid in the wake of
vaccination, and I'm talking within a few years. Are you aware of any
sudden, massive changes in nutrition amongst children in the USA right
around 1966? I'm not.

>Also, health studies show measles infection in vaccinated communities
>can occur nearly as often, in some cases more often, than in
>non-vaccinated populations.

Hogwash. Cite your studies. Measles can still occur in vaccinated
persons, and occasionally does, but usually with reduced severity.

>Any premise that dead virus stimulates an adequate immune response in
>people with already diminished immunity is more about successful
>marketing than virology or cause and effect.

I figured you'd try to claim some other cause for the enormous drop in
measles, but I also knew you wouldn't be able to come up with a
plausible explanation. I *am* a bit disappointed in you. I'd hoped
you were above such things.

>> 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.
>
>A glaring non-sequitur. Even if the vaccine is perfectly harmless,
>which it isn't, that doesn't mean it's "efficacy and value" is a
>"closed question" or that "vaccination is good." Saying "gee whiz" is
>perfectly harmless, that doesn't mean saying "gee whiz" is beneficial
>to my health.

No, but saying "gee whiz" didn't cause measles cases to drop by four
orders of magnitude, either.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile."
-- Anon.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... deaths are not the only issue. ... >*BEFORE* vaccination, how do you give the vaccine credit for more ... >for better nutrition in the poor, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... A pre-vaccination trendline shows measles declining many ... > for decades before the introduction of vaccination. ... and the death rate should be discussed separately. ... how do you give the vaccine credit for more than 10 points ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... But I was always talking about incidence. ... In terms of percentages, complications from measles, including death, ... > my contention that measles vaccination reduces cases of measles. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... it was late and I was looking at a composite chart designed to ... for half a century before vaccination began shows that measles ... deaths are not the only issue. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... But I was always talking about incidence. ... >> evidence for half a century before the vaccine existed. ... The decrease in measles ... Even after vaccination, in the 1989-1991 measles spike, there ...
    (misc.health.alternative)