>> Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria >> entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines are >> absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases >> are has not been lost, either. That's why vaccines save lives.
>> Jeff
>4 Lies, breastfeeding is safe,
Not 100%.
>and they say all the time vaccines are safe.
Yes they are, according to normal people's definition of safe. Not for you of course, but you're not normal.
>Vaccines don't prevent disease and don't save lives
"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them, anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the FDA)
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:007aa71f$0$26937
> We who also have medical training have an intimate aquaintance with the > history of vaccine development. So we can analyse propaganda like this > post and tell you what is wrong with it --- three things. > 1. Smallpox vaccine did have significant risks. It was more dangerous > than any modern vaccine, but it was still still less lethal and damaging > than smallpox epidemics. For many years all travellers had to undergo it.
> 2. Vaccinia was a live vaccine so that it probably was quite often > ineffective in the days before widespread refrigeration > 3. No data is provided about any other vaccine to show that the risks > outweigh the benefits.
> PeterB - Original wrote: > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > >> john wrote: > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > >>> and are depressed. > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal > >> articles.
> > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required > > to prove such safety.
> Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR > > responsibility to produce that data.
> Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support > your claims.
> > Unfortunately, you can't, > > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
> Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse > vaccine reports"? It never did. VAERS was made to address a particular > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring.
So that they may be followed up to ensure that it is not a statistical fluke. The perfect example was the origianl RotaShield vaccination that was picked up as causing intussusception, was investigated and this lead to the withdrawal of the vaccine.
I am not aware of any system in the realm of alternatives that can do this.
It
> is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> > You might want to talk > > to your sponsors about that.
> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
Pontificating Blowhard NEEDS you to have sponsors.
> On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > PeterB - Original wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > > >> john wrote: > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > >>> and are depressed. > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal > > >> articles.
> > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required > > > to prove such safety.
> > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> That must explain why you didn't post any.
> > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR > > > responsibility to produce that data.
> > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support > > your claims.
> Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who > advocate the policy of intervention. Only an irrational pharmnut > would claim otherwise. Are you an irrational pharmnut?
> > > Unfortunately, you can't, > > > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a > > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by > > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
> > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse > > vaccine reports"? It never did.
> I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the > importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. It's there, look > it up.
> > VAERS was made to address a particular > > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It > > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of > vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be > developed for those yet to be affected.
> > > You might want to talk > > > to your sponsors about that.
> > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
> You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-
Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies, etc. as I have opten pointed out.
> On Nov 3, 7:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 6:04 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > PeterB - Original wrote: > > > > On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > > >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > > >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > > >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > > >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > > >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > > >> and are depressed.
> > > > When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago, the public still > > > > believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by > > > > government. Those days are over. This lesson also extends to areas > > > > beyond medicine. Thanks for the link.
> > > Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria > > > entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines > > > are absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable > > > diseases are has not been lost, either.
> > I disagree. There are many people who claim that the diseases are mild > > and cause no long term problems. They claim the risk is higher with > > vaccination.
> > I would love to see a nice, extensive herpes zoster epidemic and have > > these people have a lesson.
> So, you want to be people sick. Not surprised, and a very hate filled > Jew.
Actually, BIGOT, I would prefer that they encouraged people to have their chidlren vaccinated with the safe and effective chicken pox vaccine to prevent late onset herpes zozter.
However, you, being the anti-vac liar pro-infectious disease merchant of disability and death, do not want children to be protected.
Discussion subject changed to "Physicians and health professionals are now speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination." by Mark Probert
> On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > PeterB - Original wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > > >> john wrote: > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > >>> and are depressed. > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal > > >> articles.
> > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required > > > to prove such safety.
> > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR > > > responsibility to produce that data. > > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support > > your claims
> And yours and yours alone to take responsibility to prove you are a > dr.
Ilena did that so well, and no one can improve on that.
And, BIGOT, I will comment when I feel like it.
> You have failed to do so. That makes you a hypocrite, Jeffrey, Peter, > Joseph Utz.-
Wrong. The fact that you, keeper of archives and master GoogleGroup searcher, have been told that you are wrong.
> "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:007aa71f$0$26937
>> We who also have medical training have an intimate aquaintance with the >> history of vaccine development. So we can analyse propaganda like this >> post and tell you what is wrong with it --- three things. >> 1. Smallpox vaccine did have significant risks. It was more dangerous >> than any modern vaccine, but it was still still less lethal and damaging >> than smallpox epidemics. For many years all travellers had to undergo >> it.
>> 2. Vaccinia was a live vaccine so that it probably was quite often >> ineffective in the days before widespread refrigeration >> 3. No data is provided about any other vaccine to show that the risks >> outweigh the benefits.
You can cut and paste all the opinions you want. I have lived through the events described and know where the truth lies. In Australia there is nothing other than vaccination that would explain the extraordinary change in epidemic disease patterns over my lifetime.
We do get deaths from Pertussis and measles and diphtheria when vaccination levels drop. This is the experience of all major countries. And it is YOUR FAULT, through your attempts to create unreasonable fear of vaccines.
"Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:0301de7f$0$1369
> You can cut and paste all the opinions you want. I have lived through > the events described and know where the truth lies. In Australia there > is nothing other than vaccination that would explain the extraordinary > change in epidemic disease patterns over my lifetime.
You sound like you are over 100.
You would say that being an Allopath.
"Compare these well vaccinated countries with Australia, the least vaccinated country in the world. In 134 years, not one-fifth of the children born have been vaccinated. Yet only three Australian children under five have died of that disease. In the last 50 years, no child under five has died of smallpox, and in the whole of her history, less than one person per annum has died of it, although allowing five years protective period, only 2 per cent, of her population have ever been "protected." ---- M. BEDDOW BAYLY M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
> We do get deaths from Pertussis and measles and diphtheria when > vaccination levels drop. This is the experience of all major countries. > And it is YOUR FAULT, through your attempts to create unreasonable fear of > vaccines.
>On Nov 3, 8:34 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 3, 5:09 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:29 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> > > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> > > >On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: >> > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE >> > > >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now >> > > >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. >> > > >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines >> > > >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and >> > > >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus >> > > >> and are depressed.
>> > > >When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago,
>> > > Got any proof your cousin was killed by a vaccine?
>> > I don't. My mother was very young (she was there with her niece) and >> > lawsuits in those days were rare. Alanna was perfectly well going >> > into the facility, perfectly dead an hour after vaccination.
>> What year are you talking about? Sounds like the pre-1950's.
>I will not provide personal information about my family to those who >distort the truth on behalf of their sponsors. That means you.
Translation: I was lying.
>> > > > the public still believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by >> > > >government. Those days are over. This lesson also extends to areas >> > > >beyond medicine. Thanks for the link.
>> Nothing is absolutely safe. When ones poops, there is a risk of bacteria >> entering the blood stream. The government never claimed that vaccines are >> absolutely safe. The lesson of how dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases >> are has not been lost, either. That's why vaccines save lives.
>> Jeff
>4 Lies, breastfeeding is safe, and they say all the time vaccines are safe. >Vaccines don't prevent disease and don't save lives
Almost all autistic children have been breastfed before the onset of autism. Coincidence? I think not.
PeterB - Original wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:35 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: >> PeterB - Original wrote:
>> <...>
>>>> VAERS was made to address a particular >>>> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It >>>> is not meant to prove the safety of anything. >>> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of >>> vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine >>> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be >>> developed for those yet to be affected. >> Of course not.
> Yes, the proper vetting of VAERS reports would permit a meaningful > review of vaccine safety in those already affected.
No it wouldn't. Look at how the CDC went to Kaiser Permente to get data about rotavirus vaccine safety when there were potential issues. The database is not designed that way at all. Anyone can enter a report.
>> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine >> is being used.
> No kidding.
> Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical >> trials prior to licensure.
> I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong, > where is it?
I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
>>>>> You might want to talk >>>>> to your sponsors about that. >>>> I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors. >>> You mean you don't have the balls to admit it. >> No, I mean that I only speak for myself. I get no money from any >> drug company or other type of pharmaceutical company.
> PeterB - Original wrote: > > On Nov 3, 9:35 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > >> PeterB - Original wrote:
> >> <...>
> >>>> VAERS was made to address a particular > >>>> issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It > >>>> is not meant to prove the safety of anything. > >>> More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of > >>> vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine > >>> were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be > >>> developed for those yet to be affected. > >> Of course not.
> > Yes, the proper vetting of VAERS reports would permit a meaningful > > review of vaccine safety in those already affected.
> No it wouldn't. Look at how the CDC went to Kaiser Permente to get data > about rotavirus vaccine safety when there were potential issues. The > database is not designed that way at all. Anyone can enter a report.
> >> VAERS is meant to catch adverse events after the vaccine > >> is being used.
> > No kidding.
> > Other safety studies are done as part of the clinical > >> trials prior to licensure.
> > I have found no meaningful safety data on vaccines. If I'm wrong, > > where is it?
> I have posted it before. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and look.
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 8:34 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 3, 5:09 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:29 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> > > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > >> > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > >> > > >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > >> > > >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > >> > > >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > >> > > >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > >> > > >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > >> > > >> and are depressed.
> >> > > >When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago,
> >> > > Got any proof your cousin was killed by a vaccine?
> >> > I don't. My mother was very young (she was there with her niece) and > >> > lawsuits in those days were rare. Alanna was perfectly well going > >> > into the facility, perfectly dead an hour after vaccination.
> >> What year are you talking about? Sounds like the pre-1950's.
> >I will not provide personal information about my family to those who > >distort the truth on behalf of their sponsors. That means you.
> Ok, I'm sorry about my previous post. You are a hypocrite. Other > people must meet an easonable
Whatever *esasonable* is.....
burden of proof, sometimes even immoral,
> in the case of a placebo controlled trial with vaccines, while you > yourself OTOH can make the most serious accusations and claims without > even providing the tiniest shred of proof. So for now, I'm even > calling the existence of said cousin in question. It's that > biologically, you must have a mother,
Duh, everyone has a mother.
or else I'd doubt that as well.
> Say bye to the little bit of credibility you had left.
> >> > > > the public still believed in the absolute safety of any medicine approved by > >> > > >government. Those days are over. This lesson also extends to areas > >> > > >beyond medicine. Thanks for the link.- Hide quoted text -
> >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. > >> They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the benefits > >> greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines cause ADHD, > >> autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am incorrect, please > >> provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal articles.
> > Numerous lies
> > "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children > > does more harm than good."---Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine > > Control Officer and research virologist, US FDA
> Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA > does such extensive studies.
> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message > > > Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA > > does such extensive studies.
> "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is > effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers > of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them, > anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer > at the FDA)
> On Nov 3, 9:18 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > PeterB - Original wrote: > > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > > > >> john wrote: > > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > > >>> and are depressed. > > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and > > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the > > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines > > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am > > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal > > > >> articles.
> > > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a > > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states > > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required > > > > to prove such safety.
> > > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> > That must explain why you didn't post any.
> > > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR > > > > responsibility to produce that data.
> > > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support > > > your claims.
> > Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who > > advocate the policy of intervention. Only an irrational pharmnut > > would claim otherwise. Are you an irrational pharmnut?
> > > > Unfortunately, you can't, > > > > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a > > > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by > > > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
> > > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse > > > vaccine reports"? It never did.
> > I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the > > importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. It's there, look > > it up.
> > > VAERS was made to address a particular > > > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It > > > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> > More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of > > vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine > > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be > > developed for those yet to be affected.
> > > > You might want to talk > > > > to your sponsors about that.
> > > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
> > You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-
> Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies, > etc. as I have opten pointed out.- Hide quoted text -
Discussion subject changed to "Physicians and health professionals are now speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination." by Mark Probert
> Once again, Martin Rady proves himself to be a hypocrite.
> Wonder why he never asks his gang members for proof of their > anecdotes??
> > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 3, 8:34 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 3, 5:09 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:23:29 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > >> > > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >On Nov 3, 6:42 am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > >> > > >> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > >> > > >> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > >> > > >> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > >> > > >> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > >> > > >> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > >> > > >> and are depressed.
> > >> > > >When my cousin was killed by vaccine some years ago,
> > >> > > Got any proof your cousin was killed by a vaccine?
> > >> > I don't. My mother was very young (she was there with her niece) and > > >> > lawsuits in those days were rare. Alanna was perfectly well going > > >> > into the facility, perfectly dead an hour after vaccination.
> > >> What year are you talking about? Sounds like the pre-1950's.
> > >I will not provide personal information about my family to those who > > >distort the truth on behalf of their sponsors. That means you.
> > Ok, I'm sorry about my previous post. You are a hypocrite. Other > > people must meet an easonable
> Whatever *esasonable* is.....
> burden of proof, sometimes even immoral,
> > in the case of a placebo controlled trial with vaccines, while you > > yourself OTOH can make the most serious accusations and claims without > > even providing the tiniest shred of proof. So for now, I'm even > > calling the existence of said cousin in question. It's that > > biologically, you must have a mother,
> Duh, everyone has a mother.
> or else I'd doubt that as well.
> > Say bye to the little bit of credibility you had left.
Jan Drew wrote: > On Nov 4, 7:19�am, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: >> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message > >>> Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA >>> does such extensive studies. >>> jeff >> No he wasn'thttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html
>> "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is >> effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers >> of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them, >> anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer >> at the FDA)
> Jeffey, Peter. Joseph Utz put to shame again
Incorrect.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
Volume 357:1373-1381 October 4, 2007 Number 14 NextNext
Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly Kristin L. Nichol, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., James D. Nordin, M.D., M.P.H., David B. Nelson, Ph.D., John P. Mullooly, Ph.D., and Eelko Hak, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Background Reliable estimates of the effectiveness of influenza vaccine among persons 65 years of age and older are important for informed vaccination policies and programs. Short-term studies may provide misleading pictures of long-term benefits, and residual confounding may have biased past results. This study examined the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in seniors over the long term while addressing potential bias and residual confounding in the results.
Methods Data were pooled from 18 cohorts of community-dwelling elderly members of one U.S. health maintenance organization (HMO) for 1990–1991 through 1999–2000 and of two other HMOs for 1996–1997 through 1999–2000. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of the vaccine for the prevention of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and death after adjustment for important covariates. Additional analyses explored for evidence of bias and the potential effect of residual confounding.
Results There were 713,872 person-seasons of observation. Most high-risk medical conditions that were measured were more prevalent among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons. Vaccination was associated with a 27% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in the risk of death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55). Estimates were generally stable across age and risk subgroups. In the sensitivity analyses, we modeled the effect of a hypothetical unmeasured confounder that would have caused overestimation of vaccine effectiveness in the main analysis; vaccination was still associated with statistically significant — though lower — reductions in the risks of both hospitalization and death.
Conclusions During 10 seasons, influenza vaccination was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly persons. Vaccine delivery to this high-priority group should be improved.
> On Nov 4, 9:32 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 9:18 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > > PeterB - Original wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote: > > > > >> john wrote: > > > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE > > > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now > > > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination. > > > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines > > > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and > > > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus > > > > >>> and are depressed. > > > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and > > > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the > > > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines > > > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am > > > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal > > > > >> articles.
> > > > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a > > > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states > > > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required > > > > > to prove such safety.
> > > > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
> > > That must explain why you didn't post any.
> > > > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR > > > > > responsibility to produce that data.
> > > > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support > > > > your claims.
> > > Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who > > > advocate the policy of intervention. Only an irrational pharmnut > > > would claim otherwise. Are you an irrational pharmnut?
> > > > > Unfortunately, you can't, > > > > > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a > > > > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by > > > > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
> > > > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse > > > > vaccine reports"? It never did.
> > > I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the > > > importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. It's there, look > > > it up.
> > > > VAERS was made to address a particular > > > > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It > > > > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
> > > More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of > > > vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine > > > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be > > > developed for those yet to be affected.
> > > > > You might want to talk > > > > > to your sponsors about that.
> > > > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
> > > You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-
> > Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies, > > etc. as I have opten pointed out.- Hide quoted text -
