|
|
cathyb wrote:
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.
John Scumamore of the whale.bullshit website does the same thing. He
claims that people redefine diseases to show that they have been
eradicated.
Hmmm.similar paranoia...I hope a vaccine is developed soon.
such a study would have to be performed in a third world nation to be
meaningful.
PeterB
|
|