Re: Opinions on Echinacea

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> >
> > Answer the question. Did you not swear off debating the data?
>
> <snip>
>
> Yep. Petey's plaintive begging got too much, though.
>
> However, in his last reply:
>
> Mentions of 'pharmablogging': 6 or 7
>
> Oblique references to 'pharmablogging': Several more.

cathy whines about the darnedest things; just a few weeks ago, she said
she found my assertions entertaining. I would say things got a little
rough for her in this round. Be sure to read the above rebuttal from
which she snipped all but 11 words, if you want to see the evasive
maneuvers of a Pharma Blogger in action. You might say they have a
problem dealing with the facts.

>
> Evidence to support his contention that nutrition was the cause of the
> precipitous drop in measles after the introduction of vaccination: NIL.
> Not one piece.

I covered this but you snipped it before posting your cop-out rebuttal.
I'll repeat: The 5 decade decline in measles morbidity PRIOR to
vaccination tracked improvements in environmental factors (described in
the earlier post), and continued past 1960 when such advances became
even more pronounced. Prior to measles vaccine, 90% of the decline in
measles deaths had already occured, so the sole basis for your argument
is the additional 10 percentage points of reduction in overall
morbidity (using the full data set, not just the slice you find
convenient to your theory.) Put another way, measles vaccine did not
exist when 90% of measles infection was already a thing of the past.
It isn't logical to give vaccine credit for more than a tiny slice of
the remaining and relatively miniscule reduction in rates of infection.


Something I forgot to mention in the earlier post. Dr. Mark Reecher, a
consultant in public health medicine at the Public Health Laboratory
Service, in Colindale, (PULSE, January 18, 1997), stated that "measles
is wrongly diagnosed in 97 per cent of cases...these findings show how
inherently difficult it is to make a diagnosis based on clinical
symptoms alone. Any doctor would find it difficult to differentiate
between viruses." Clearly, a disparity in measles reporting could
explain variations in the number of reported cases, such that
vaccinated children WITH measles could themselves be easily
misdiagnosed, partly on the assumption they "should not have" measles
once vaccinated. It's likely, therefore, that actual numbers of
measles infection are much higher than current reporting now indicates.


> Evidence to support his contention that measles vaccination works in
> only 10% of cases: NIL.

It's a reasonable guess in lieu of the absence of long-term study
results which the pharmaceuticals refuse to conduct. What are they
afraid of? I would be happy to see you pull a long-term study result
showing double-blind lab analysis documenting 30% or 50% long-term
immunization. It would change the entire debate. I'll ask it again:
where is the data proving that vaccination provides long-term
immunization, and in what percentage of patients? And if you don't
have it, which you obviously don't, how do YOU know the rate of
immunization is BETTER than 10%? You don't.

> There really is no point discussing anything with the poor boy.

Translation: "I snipped massive content from your rebuttal to avoid
having a discussion and now I'm blaming you that I'm in over my head."

PeterB

.