|
|
PeterB wrote:
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.
So, you admit it is another term you created. However, like
'pharmablogger' it does not exist in the real world. In fact, what you
say does not exist in the real world.
Let's say a physician sees a young child who he personally vaccinated
against chickenpox. The child has these skin lesions that look like
chicken pox. Chicken pox leions are very chaaracteristic, and it would
be only a NLP doctor who could miss it. (NLP is no light perception, a
level of blindness way beyond legal blindness).
Or, like a friend of my son...she had the oral polio vaccines, and
shorthly thereafter exhibited the signs of polio. Her mother took her to
the doctor and that was the initial diffrential diagnosis. (note that
the young lady continued to have all her vaccinations).
We already
know that immunization varies by vaccine, but we don't know the
percentage of that failure
We know that vaccination imparts different levels of immunity. That was
discovered by conventional doctors.
because your bosses
MORON.
don't want to disrupt
their global, bread and butter vaccine franchise.
Again, BULLSHIT. Vaccination failure is well studied:
Google Scholar Results 1 - 20 of about 30,400 for vaccination failure.
(0.22 seconds)
Google Scholar Results 1 - 20 of about 190 for "vaccination failure".
(0.22 seconds)
I hope this leads to you getting a clue.
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.
See above. The only guessing is your idle conjecture, as you did here.
All we know for sure is that it's impossible that vaccines
are working as well as the drug makers would have us believe.
The drug manufacturers make no claim of a 100% immunization rate. If
they were as money driven as you claim, they would be spending money on
research to show that a series of vaccines are needed to impart immunity.
|
|