Re: Opinions on Echinacea

cathyb wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > cathyb wrote:
> > > PeterB wrote:
> > > > cathyb wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Here cathyb shoots herself in the foot.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well here's the thing. I actually thought Petey might have noticed his
> > > mistake without having it spelled out.
> > >
> > > However, here we go: measles mortality is well-documented to have
> > > declined prior to vaccination. Measles morbidity is not, and did not.
> > > And Petey, bless him, actually used the two interchangably in his
> > > 'explanation' above.
> >
> > I was mistaken not to discuss the two trendlines separately, it was
> > late and I was tired. It doesn't change the fact that 90% of measles
> > death were behind us when vaccination began. It also doesn't suggest
> > that measles vaccine be given credit for more than a part of the
> > additional 10 points of drop in the rate of death. Nutrition was
> > always the key, and always will be.
>
> Nutrition is important, and always will be. Improvements in
> conventional medicine that meant more people survived the measles
> complications that lead to death also played a part.

I see your handlers decided your "goofy" routine wasn't working. Now
you have a slightly better script (only slightly.) Is this the new and
improved cathyb for all time? Or is it just for me? Never mind, I'll
be happy that now when you talk in circles it doesn't take us back to
square one in the same sentence.

Part of clinical treatment for measles during the 1940s and 1950s was
administration of vitamin A, which greatly improved survival rates in
those patients. Can you point to any conventional medicine that was
nearly as effective? Obviously, vitamin A therapy is an approach in
natural medicine.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The percentage of deaths
> > > > relative to infection actually trended UP in several of the years
> > > > following vaccination, which any high schooler could plainly determine
> > > > with a $2 calculator. That's is the kind of information cathyb doesn't
> > > > know how to talk about, because it doesn't fit her belief that
> > > > vaccination was driving measles infection, or deaths, further down.
> > > > She also doesn't bother to explain how measles infection, and deaths,
> > > > declined by 90% before vaccine was introduced.
> > >
> > > But morbidity didn't. Unless Petey is accepting and exaggerating my
> > > earlier mistake, and there was an annual incidence of 4.5--5.5 million.
> > > I'd really love to see his evidence for that. Unless it's another ghost
> > > report from whaleto.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > The quote itself is evidence, unless you suggest I take your word over
> > > > that of a professional medical doctor, and consultant on issues of
> > > > virology at a modern medical center.
> > >
> > > Hm. The quote is only to be found on whaleto, and two chiropractic
> > > sites. Similarly, the name of the doctor who gave it. The actual
> > > article mentions no study, or publication where the study may be found.
> > > Very convincing.
> >
> > If you had subscribed to PULSE, you would have seen it there first.
> > The quote was not a study abstract, but an observation made by a
> > medical professional. I never claimed it was a PubMed report. Any
> > doctor will tell you that identifying a specific infectious disease
> > without forensics is really a judgement call; there are too many
> > viruses and similarity of symptoms. You don't need a study to know
> > that doctors are bad at diagnoses without tests.
>
> This has changed from "the quote itself is evidence" to an "observation
> by *a* medical prfessional".

It isn't a contradiction. Relevant commentary by those in the medical
profession needs to be considered, it's how you arrive at a balanced
view.

>
> Is it backed up anywhere else? Why, if as this Reecher claimed, he
> studied 12000 cases and found a 97% error rate in measles reporting,
> did he not publish his data? Is there anything, anywhere, that backs up
> his claim?

I'll look into it. I would point out that what he found, if published,
would be politically explosive. Perhaps he tried and the journals
flinched. Those things do happen, although I don't know in this case.
In a similar vein, I will ask you for the sixth time: Do you have any
long-term, double-blind study references showing that vaccine works
more than 10% of the time? Yes, or no?


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Here is a peer-reviewed study listed on pubmed which touches on Peter'
> > > guess that doctors are unlikely to diagnose measles in a vaccinated
> > > child:
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2409903&query_hl=7.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, it says that measles is in fact over-diagnosed in
> > > vaccinated subjects. It's only one study, and I'd prefer to see more
> > > data before I relied on it, but it's a hell of a lot more data than
> > > Petey has for his guess.
> >
> > Citing data showing that doctors attribute symptoms to measles in a
> > vaccinated patient might be telling you something more about the
> > vaccine than the patient.
>
> What? That the measles vaccine isn't 100% effective? Find someone who
> doesn't know that.
>
> The study appears to say, however, that it may be more effective than
> is thought.

That's just wishful thinking on your part. The reference says this was
a 4mth study in the city of Lagos, Nigeria. There is no mention of the
study size, however it clearly has no bearing on clinical practices in
the USA or Britain. I imagine the clinical staff in such a facility
would have been a problem; that is, in the face of diverse viral
agents, or other illness typical of the African population, an
indigenous medical staff might not have been experienced enough to
avoid such errors. Only out of context does this abstract support your
argument. It's not at all about over-diagnosis of measles in any
general sense.


>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Sorry, cathyb, you still haven't
> > > > found the wizard. No wizard, no brain.
> > > >
> > > > > Oddly, the anti-vac liars rarely like the "changes in diagnosis"
> > > > > argument when it is applied to, say, autism.
> > > >
> > > > The vaccine coverup jockeys love to change the subject; see how they
> > > > never address the facts, the actual data? Predictable.
> > >
> > >
> > > If Petey uses an argument to back up his wild guesses, he really should
> > > expect to have it criticised. Perhaps he can come up with some actual
> > > data to back his assertion that measles is massively under-diagnosed
> > > instead?
> >
> > Actually, I didn't make that assertion, I simply quoted a medical
> > professional who said it was a problem. But if he's half right, that's
> > a huge amount of under-reporting.
>
> And what if he's only 40% right? Or 10% right? Data?

It's the same question I've been asking you about the effectiveness of
vaccine; the drug makers have no long-term studies to back it up, but
here you are asking readers to accept it on the word of a usenet
poster. Or put another way, it proves how desperate the drug companies
are to rely on you to promote vaccine.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Answer the question. How do YOU know the rate of immunization is BETTER
> > > > than 10%? Where is your data supporting a "better" guess? You don't
> > > > have it, do you?
> > >
> > > Well, here are a few studies of the many available on pub-med that
> > > touch on measles vaccination efficacy:
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15176719&query_hl=5
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15106101&query_hl=5
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15106099&query_hl=5
> > >
> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1221698&query_hl=17.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that came even close to
> > > suggesting a failure rate of 90%.
> >
> > With anti-body titres, health surveys, and multiple jabs for assurance,
> > all we have is guesswork about the value of measles vaccine.
>
> So still no data to support a failure rate of 90%?

Still no data to support ANY percentage of effective immunization, so
my guess is as good as anyone's. That's been my point all along: in
the absence of long-term data, there is no reason to vaccinate, and
probably a reason to avoid it.


>
>
> > Virology
> > is expensive and I guess the drug makers would rather spend that money
> > on promotion than long-term, double blind studies. What we do know is
> > that 90% of measles deaths occured prior to the vaccine campaign,
> > therefore quality of nutrition and lifestyle are far more important to
> > health than vaccination.
>
> No, we know that they are very important with respect to measles
> mortality. However, when measles outbreaks occur, there is still
> mortality (look at the 1989--1991 spike), and the best way of avoiding
> outbreaks is vaccination, i.e., avoidance of the measles morbidity that
> better living and nutritional standards had not touched

Another ipso facto declaration without good science to back it up.

>
> >
> > > Apparently, neither can Peter.
> >
> > Right. I can't find evidence that vaccine accounts for improvements in
> > survival after measles infection because the makers don't have that
> > evidence. Insteady, they rely on people like you to promote
> > vaccination for them. Funny world we live in.
>
>
> The evidence sought is for the claim that vaccines are effective in
> only 10% of cases.

The evidence sought is for long-term study data supporting ANY
percentage of effective immunization. Since the drug companies don't
have it, neither do you. The script only works part of the time, you
know.

>
> BTW, people who have not caught measles because they were vaccinated
> against it, generally don't die of measles.

Let's rewrite your statement above to see how ridiculous a non sequitur
it is:

BTW, people who have not gotten cancer because they were radiated,
generally don't die of cancer.

On second thought, cathy, your handlers might need more time to sort
things out.

PeterB

.