Re: Opinions on Echinacea

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Interesting. PeteyB has obviously recently learned La Lollipop's tactic
> of accusing people of pretending to be somebody else, or a like one.
> Bless. Just shows effort will do where intelligence is lacking.

Answer the question. Did you not swear off debating the data? Don't
tell me. Your team leader felt sorry for you and said, "Ok cathy,
let's try to prevent your brain from being immortalized as a block of
wood. Type this and hit the submit button." Suddenly you're gushing
with links, data, and graphs, none of which prove that vaccination
works, despite your ipso facto declarations.

>
> > Will you claim this
> > to be a form of repentance reflecting regret that you treated me so
> > badly?
>
> Odd. A refusal to respond to his cretinous accusations of
> 'pharmablogger' is treating him badly?

She pretends she wasn't ALREADY responding to my charge of Pharma
Blogger. My challenge wasn't about that, and she knows it, but Pharma
Blogging isn't about facing the facts, it's about evading them. It's
her only real talent...

>
> > 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
>
> Hm, please look at the graph again.
> Show how nutrition and living standards changed quite so much in just a
> few years. Think.

The first 60 years after the industrial revolution saw many changes in
environmental factors related to infectious disease outbreak,
particularly after the 1930s. For instance, streamlining of food
production throughout society made access to higher quality foods more
affordable, a ramp up in fortification of nutrients in manufactured
foods, better clinical response to infectious disease exposure (long
before vaccination), and even introduction of multi-vitamins during the
1940s. Notice the huge drop in incidence of measles in the late 1950s,
long before introduction of measles vaccine. The average number of
measles deaths in the first thirty years of the 20th century were about
5,000 annually. But the average rate of death from measles during the
1940s was well under 2,000 per year, *fully twenty years before measles
vaccine.* Is this your evidence that vaccine was responsible for the
majority of reduced morbidity due to measles during the twentieth
century? If so, you'll have to send your precious vaccine back in time
using the cathyb X2R time machine; be sure to set the dial to about
1935 so it looks at least *POSSIBLE* that vaccine was the reason for
these enormous declines in measles death.

> > 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.
>
> Oh dear. Petey's paranoia showing.

Then stop dodging and answer the questions.

>
> > 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?

Cathyb had no response to this. That's because she can't CHANGE data
already published in the medical literature, consequently she makes it
up as she goes along. Notice how she avoids being specific, avoids
referencing a full history of data, avoids addressing huge
discrepancies in her distortions of the facts...Pharma Blogging 101...

> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Oh dear. Peter is making things up again.
>
> The fact that fewer people died in his 'spike' years than had died in
> the years prior to vaccination is passed over.

I guess she can't read. My figures show a comparison of measles
morbidity DURING years of active vaccination, with HIGHER death figures
for 1971 compared to 1968 (death up +275%), 1977 to 1976 (death up
25%), and 1990 to 1981 (death up 3,100%.) This is what is being
ignored...

>
> > And she tells me
> > I should burn in hell for not having my kids vaccinated.
>
> Hm. Petey's lying again, the naughty boy.

Cathyb said she would ENJOY seeing people like me burn in hell, if it
makes any difference.

>
> > 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.
>
> Oh, the halfwit. 55000 cases on a base of, say, 10000 gives an increase
> of 550%.

So?

>
> If there is an outbreak of measles in a population where the incidence
> is low (for instance, in a vaccinated population), the percentage
> increase caused by an outbreak will of course be enormous. As occurred
> in the years 1989--1991.

Only when the fluctuation ITSELF is enormous, pharma-blogging dimwit.
Why do you think researchers USE percentages in the first place? It
levels the playing field and provides a common numerical relationship
for making comparisons.

>
> An extra 55000 cases in a year where the number of cases was 3 million
> anyway would be 1.02%.

Or 1.8%, to be precise. So? Another silly Pharma Blogging effort at
distraction.

>
> As I said, an outbreak in a population where incidence is very low will
> provide the anti-vaccination liars with lovely percentage increases to
> use.

Those "lovely percentages of increase" are real deaths that your
precious vaccine did not prevent, and you still haven't shown data
proving that non-vaccinated children are more susceptible to measles
than vaccinated children, despite all your denials and evasions.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Fuckit. I had actually hoped Petey could come up with an argument that
> didn't involve his imaginary nemesis. Also that he knew something about
> the immune system. This might be his weakest analogy yet.

Does that mean you believe children get measles because they don't have
vaccine in their bodies? If that's true, then why doesn't every child
get measles? Enlighten us. I'm waiting...

>
> > 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.
>
>
> And you see, this is why I have been refusing to discuss these thing
> with the boy Petey. He seems to think that accusing me or anyone else
> of being paid by industry is an actual argument.

If you prefer me to conclude that you're simply an idiot, I won't
oblige. You may well be an idiot, but the fact is that NOBODY does
what you are doing for free, and only a script will make a person look
so dumb. At least David has the ability to AVOID getting into trouble
most of the time, so I respect him for that. You, on the other hand,
have been set up. They are laughing behind your back, girlie. At
least I'm laughing to your face...

>
> BTW, he still hasn't come up with a shred of evidence for this.

You ARE the evidence, dimwit.

> >
> > > 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?
>
> He really knows nothing about how vaccination works, does he? Or indeed
> the immune system.

I know exactly how vaccine is *supposed* to work. If you're lucky, it
immunizes 10% of the time. People in the industry know that, whereas
idiots believe it immunizes something like 90% of the time.

>
> > 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.
>
>
> His evidence for this would be interesting to see; or is that amusing?

What's amusing is your inability to provide double-blind clinical
studies proving that vaccine works.

>
>
> > HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DATA SUPPORTING EVEN THAT. If there
> > was, the vaccination campaigns would have to stop over night.
>
> Much to the relief of the big pharmeceutical companies; imagine the
> money to be made...

?

>
> > 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 proof that fuel additive will prevent you from getting killed
> > in your automobile? Enough said.
>
>
> LOL. "We're not on a roadtrip...". Analogies aren't allowed on mha
> (lollipop doesn't get them), but that one's more fatuous than most,
> since Petey is confusing his determination to ignore the evidence with
> its not actually being there.

It wasn't an analogy. I simply rewrote your vaccine commercial.
Normally, I refer to what you posted as a non sequitur. In other
words, the fact that someone dies without being vaccinated doesn't mean
they died for that reason.

>
> Well, that pile of halfwitted crap can speak for itself. Particularly
> since the boy has proved that he really can't sustain an argument
> without using his beloved 'pharmabloggers'.

You've proved you can't sustain an argument by ANY means.

>
> >
> > > 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.
>
>
> Well, I did use 'Hogwash.'

Is that like a detergent for bathing Pharma Bloggers?

>
> Enough evidence for PeteyB.

She calls that evidence? Yeah, it's evidence she is exactly what I've
said from the start.

>
> > 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.
>
> Ah, I see PeteyB has no evidence to back that ridiculous claim, so he's
> retreated into his paranoia again. No-one's who they seem...

Are you denying that vaccine ADEs are published in the medical
literature, documenting illness and death? Do you have evidence that
vaccination does NOT cause death and illness, or that spikes in
infectious disease are not related to vaccination? All you have to do
is post that evidence here, for everyone to see. I'll be waiting...

> > 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?!
>
> Bless; he really is a brown-nose eh? Give him a pat on the head; he's
> desparate for attention, Lolly.

I would be here with or without them. It's nice to have company,
though. You know all about that, right cathy? I mean, your team is
like 15 or more people. All defending mainstream medicine, as if it's
some kind of sinking ship. Hmmm. Maybe it is...

> Sorry for any typos etc; in a hurry to go out.

You float terds the size of battle ships and worry about typos? Thanks
for making me laugh...

PeterB

.