Re: Opinions on Echinacea

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > David Wright wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Two points. A pre-vaccination trendline shows measles declining many
> > year prior to introduction of MMR, probably because of improvements in
> > living standards, better nutritional status, introduction of fortified
> > foods, and possibly use of supplements.
>
> Of course, improved living standards and nutrition will help. But
> there's a lovely graph on this US Department of Health page showing the
> fatuity of this claim; just look at the minor decline, and then that
> precipitous drop:
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/diseases/measles/history.htm#HOM

David! I mean Cathyb?! Is that you??! Are you attempting to grow a
brain, cathy? Or did David email you a retort via email on a computer
not subscribed to Usenet? How interesting. This in no way represents
your style, cathyb. You don't have a neuron firing in your little
head, as hundreds of posts clearly prove. I feel we need to linger on
this for a moment, take it in, roll it under our tongue, play with it a
while, make it worth the investment of our time and energy during all
this talk of people burning in hell and why you won't respond to me
despite all my pleas.

Why now? Did you not swear off responding to me because I called you a
Pharma Blogger? What changed? I suspect you were needed to get out a
timely rebuttal, and you really needed to polish your image a bit.
That's putting it mildly. So now David comes to your rescue instead of
Rich. When will you ever earn your keep, girlie? Will you claim this
to be a form of repentance reflecting regret that you treated me so
badly? Now, here you are, offering this drivel that you think amounts
to a hill of beans, with no more actual data supporting the clinical
viability of vaccine than David provided in the first place. I can't
really blame him, of course, because it doesn't exist. The fact that
measles and other infectious diseases were on the decline before,
during, and after vaccination campaigns is the point I was already
making. You think a chart extracting a PORTION of that decline
magically proves the effectiveness of MMR? You're truly an ungifted
Pharma Blogger. "Oh lookie! The pretty chart shows the line going
down! That means my team is right and vaccination works!" No, cathyb,
it means the people trying to make you look good are almost as dumb as
you are. Graphs don't prove that vaccination is clinically effective
at reducing infectious disease. The only thing than can do that are
lab reports based on double-blind studies that support such claims.
This is referred to as "the scientific method." It requires money,
research, integrity, and peer review. All things your employers can't
provide in your script because they don't exist. When you have
something more interesting to bring to the table (hopefully a brain),
let me know.

>
>
> > The fact that vaccination was
> > concomitant with this trendline doesn't prove your horse came from the
> > back of the pack to win the race. Another reason not to give
> > vaccination more than partial credit for those reductions is to observe
> > the HUGE spikes in measles outbreak well into the vaccination campaign.
>
> > For example, in 1971, incidence of measles advanced 238%, with a 275%
> > increase in deaths compared to 1968. In 1977, there was a 40% increase
> > in incidence of measles, with a 25% spike in deaths, *year over year.*
> > In 1990, measles incidence was 790% greater, and mortalities 3,100%
> > greater, compared to figures a decade earlier (1981-1990.)
>
> Look at the raw data. That eight-times-greater measles incidence in
> 1990 resulted in 55,000 cases. Compared to 3-4 million pa
> pre-vaccination. Note that Petey is carefully not comparing the numbers
> to those in the pre-vaccination era.

What is the figure for measles in 1964, the year before the vaccination
program began? Enlighten us. Is it in the millions?

>
> When the actual numbers are small, any increase produces lovely-looking
> massive percentage increases. Anti-vaccination liars are very fond of
> this fact.

Cathyb says statistical deviations are less significant because fewer
people are dead and therefore, I guess, don't matter. And she tells me
I should burn in hell for not having my kids vaccinated. The fact is,
the size of two numbers and their percentage of difference are not
amplified because of their smallness. To prove that, compare the
percentage of difference between the numbers 4 and 5 and the numbers 4
MILLION and 5 MILLION. Is it different? No, they are both 25% of the
lesser figure. So Pharma Blogging cathyb proves, once again, that a
mind would be a terrible thing to waste if she had one.

> Moreover, the US Dept. of Health says that:
>
> "A dramatic increase in measles cases occurred between 1989 and 1991.

Yes, I pointed that out myself.

> During those three years, 55,622 cases were reported.

Correct.

> Most of the cases
> occurred in children under 5 years of age, with the number of cases
> among unvaccinated Hispanic and African American populations being four
> to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.

Of course. The poorer population lacks adequate nutrition, and measles
has been clinically linked to deficiency of vitamin A. That doesn't
mean higher incidence of measles follows non-vaccination, it means it
follows lack of proper nutrition. If you accept the line that says
people get headaches because they don't take aspirin, then you'll fall
for this Pharma Blogger lie cathyb is hoping to sell you. It's her
job. Vaccine is huge bread-n-butter for the makers. It's not a
particularly high-margin product, but it represents BILLIONS in
revenue. And with backing by public health agencies, it's very EASY
money.

> This also marked
> the first time the number of measles cases for children under 5 years
> of age exceeded those for the 5 to 19 years old group.

Young children are very vulnerable, it doesn't mean this group was hit
because of non-vaccination. You don't get headaches for not taking
aspirin every day, remember? There is no double-blind study data
supporting vaccination as a means for immunization. I suspect MMR
could be working about 10% of the time, in a very narrow band of
phenotypes. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DATA SUPPORTING EVEN THAT. If there
was, the vaccination campaigns would have to stop over night. People
simply wouldn't bother. And THAT'S why the drug companies don't invest
in these studies.

>
> During this period, 123 people died from measles-related illnesses -
> almost half were under 5 years old. Ninety percent of those who lost
> their lives had not been vaccinated.

It's like a bad commercial. Here is how it might read:

"During the last ten years, 5,750 people died in automobile accidents
within a mile from home. Almost half were under 20 years old. Ninety
percent of those who lost their lives had not used fuel additive before
taking off."

Is that prove that fuel additive will prevent you from getting killed
in your automobile? Enough said.

> The 64 deaths in 1990 was the
> largest number that had been seen in almost 20 years."

Yes, I was the one who pointed that out, remember? thanks for making
my case for me.

> > Consequently, I am not prepared to accept that vaccination is
> > particularly effective for measles, or any other infectious disease.
> >
> > >
> > > >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.
> >
> > US Health dept. data for the the years cited above, which has been in
> > the published literature for years, are ample evidence that vaccination
> > is not the panacea you seem to think.
>
> Hogwash. Unless he thinks that 3-4 million cases is better than 55000.

Sounds like David again. Hi David. Do better editing next time,
cathyb. I've already addressed this. Declines from those numbers
occured prior to vaccine campaigns as nutritional status and living
standards improved. Try looking at the really BIG charts for a change.

>
> No studies showing that "measles infection in vaccinated communities
> can occur nearly as often, in some cases more often, than in
> non-vaccinated populations"?
>
>
> > At worst, vaccination may be the
> > *REASON* for upward spikes in infectious disease. I think you are
> > making the data say what you would like to believe.
>
> Oh dear. Petey's making more ridiculous statements that he can't back
> up.
> I'd love to see the evidence he based that on.

I guess cathy is back now. Hi Cathy. How is David? Anyway, thanks
for the hand off. The greatest value of this exchange was showing that
you still don't have a brain, and David needs to proof your work when
letting you post on his behalf.

Jan and Ilena, aren't you just loving this?!

PeterB

.