|
|
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
Like those who are opposed to vaccines? I could not locate the term in a
medical setting. GoogleScholar fails to locate a single scholarly
reference to it.
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
|
|