|
|
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
> > I so appreciate your generosity. I didn't retire from the debate about
> > vaccine, though. The readers were told in item 3 of my "warning" post
> > that pharma bloggers work hard to have the last word, and so you did.
> > There is only so much time available to repeat oneself and show that
> > cathy was struggling to come up with shreds of evidence in defense of
> > vaccine. My call for randomized, double-blind, long-term studies
> > proving the effectiveness of vaccine went unasnwered, by you, cathy, or
> > anyone else. I understand, of course. There are no such studies.
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Define "long-term."
>
> SBH
That depends on the viral agent being evaluated in response to vaccine.
For measles vaccine, controls would need to be tracked for a period of
at least one year, preferrably 3 years. Nowadays, whether vaccine bias
or vaccine explains the virtual non-existence of measles in the USA,
such a study would have to be performed in a third world nation to be
meaningful.
PeterB
|
|