|
|
PeterB wrote:
> 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,
Oops. Except that he never provided any evidence at all that 'vaccine
bias' actually exists. It's not a term that shows up even in a google
search in the sense that Peter uses it. He made it up to try and
explain why measles virtually disappeared in less than half a decade.
He thinks that all doctors and parents in the USA suddenly refused to
identify measles when they saw it all of a sudden.
Its only one of the several fictions he came up with to explain the
disappearance of measles.
> such a study would have to be performed in a third world nation to be
> meaningful.
>
> PeterB
|
|