|
|
Mark Probert 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
>
> 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.
"Vaccine bias" is the assumption that a person's illness cannot be
related to a viral agent one has been vaccinated against. We already
know that immunization varies by vaccine, but we don't know the
percentage of that failure because your bosses don't want to disrupt
their global, bread and butter vaccine franchise. Since it's
impossible for *every* case of viral infection to be detected in large
populations like the USA, in the absence of randomized, double-blind,
long-term studies on vaccine, we are left to guess on all of these
variables. All we know for sure is that it's impossible that vaccines
are working as well as the drug makers would have us believe.
PeterB
|
|