Re: Opinions on Echinacea


PeterB wrote:
> 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.

Yep, that's true.

I also said that it made arguing with him on any actual issues
pointless.
Which Petey B has been at pains to prove.

> 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.


Petey is confusing measles morbidity and measles deaths again here.
Whether he's doing it on purpose, or just hasn't noticed depends on
whether he's dim or duplicitous.


>
>
> 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.

Something for which he provides no evidence other than his wish to
believe it.

Oddly, the anti-vac liars rarely like the "changes in diagnosis"
argument when it is applied to, say, autism.


>
>
> > 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.

It's a guess, certainly. For which he has provided no evidence, again.
Nor any reason suppose it's a reasonable guess.


>
> > 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

Bless.

.