Richard Schultz wrote:
Association is not causality, and your fuzzy reference to this
anecdotal data is meaningless. The large decline in severe disease
response (about 65%) from 1920 until the vaccine's introduction in 1955
means a powerful trend was already underway. Do you think this trend
simply stopped because artificial immunization came along? By what
magical theorum could that have happened? Even if the vaccine was
responsible for driving the virus further into quiescence, the
trendline suggests this would have continued anyway (without the kinds
of vaccine damage endured by thousands of people.)

Richard Schultz wrote:
Wow. A vaccine that works for 40 years and on populations that never
got the vaccine too.

TC

In article <emakkp$9mr$8@news.iucc.ac.il>,
Richard Schultz <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
PeterB spits on epidemiologic data, which he contemptuously dismisses
as "tally-stroking surveys." But he reveres VAERS, to which anyone
can submit data no matter how preposterous. The only time I've even
heard of VAERS data being questioned by the repository was when some
guy (who was testing to see what it'd take) claimed vaccines turned
him into the Incredible Hulk.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In article <1166632833.728518.291010@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
The trends show nothing of the sort; polio was spiking after WW II.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In message <b2oih.35735$wP1.28183@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> , David Wright wrote:
You're looking at the wrong data.

We've never been able to pin down the *right* data, mind;
PB has never been able to actually point to any vaccine
preventable diseases that were in decline at the time that
mass vaccination was introduced [1]. As a matter of fact, he
doesn't seem to be willing to even point to actual primary
data of any kind.

Like Scudamore, it's always someone's quoted (and unsupported)
opinion, then (like Jan) it's personal attacks as a defense
against dealing with the facts themselves.

[1] To date, it's been more than ten years that I've been
making my standing challenge. So far, no takers.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

On 20 Dec 2006 08:40:33 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Oh what a load of crap. You sound like the denialist morons who claim
HIV doesn't cause AIDS.


Now you make a claim with no data to support it.

I think the effect of the vaccine is abundantly clear.

I don't need idiots like you to decry the pharmaceutical industry's
egregious nonsense which IS a genuine problem when you can't wrap your
mind around reality.

George M. Carter

In message <1166546295.012951.144630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:
If you're going to claim that morbidity for a disease was on
the decline prior to vaccines, how about some actual numbers?

a) handwaving "3.5%" when you don't even have primary data, or
references to primary data, is rhetorical masturbation.
b) even if morbidity overall was trending down, it patently
doesn't follow that a particular disease was trending down.
Just to name two: HIV and viral hepatitis.

I note that despite being invited and even having a wide
selection of countries and diseases to choose from, you have
meticulously avoided backing up your assertions with even
the simplest counterexample, to wit:

a) Pick a disease: pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella,
diphtheria, haemophilis influenzae, polio;
b) Pick a country, any country, as long as it has kept
records consistent with (c):
c) Post the disease rates for the ten years prior to and
subsequent to the introduction of mass vaccination,
along with vaccination rates where they are not near 100%
d) Show us that there's no correlation. It should be easy.

As the old saying goes, "Once is happenstance, twice is
coincidence, three times in enemy action." The set above
runs into hundreds of combinations, so if you can't find
even *ONE* of them where there's no connection the "it's
just coincidence" explanation puts a bit of a strain on
any rational mind's credulity.

Just one counterexample. It should be a piece of cake.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <1166632833.728518.291010@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:
What was the trend in *POLIO* disease rates?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

David Wright wrote:
You mean rates of infection. But as explained, infection rates are not
as reliable as mortality rates, for obvious reasons. Even if they
were, the severity of response to exposure, not production of
antibodies, is the key to effective public health care. So, the
severity of disease response had declined hugely over three decades,
before the vaccine came along. Perhaps if you would take the time to
learn the difference between vector and host, you would not find this
so difficult.

PeterB

In article <1166138543.705242.233400@79g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
carole <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
The fact that you are "sure" of this is not evidence. Well, it's
evidence that you're big on conspiracies, but it's not evidence that
such remedies actually exist.

"No doubt?" No doubt in your mind, but considerable doubt in the
minds of others.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In article <1166547092.462591.3660@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.c om>,
carole <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

There may be sure a cure, but your saying that there "probably" is
does not constutute proof of anyting other than your love of
conspiracies.

That's because they don't exist in the general population. If blood
acidity were common, the hospitals would be full to bursting with
hyperacidotic patients, for example.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

David Wright wrote:
The evidence is prima facie. The majority of declines in severe
morbidity (not simply incidence of exposure and antibody production)
happened long before vaccines came along. That your sponsors try and
ride the coat-tails of pre-existing trends is both unethical and
dangerous.

That's only true for people who mistake a host for a vector. You know.
People like you. The only thing I disagree with the poster about is
that anything is being suppressed. No one expects your sponsors to
advertise competing products because that isn't kind to shareholders.
Of course, shareholders need to think about what kind of human beings
support companies that commoditize disease in order to make a profit.

PeterB

In article <1167453275.751878.239930@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
According to you. I have yet to accept you as an authority.

The fact that you continue to spout such obvious nonsense is
mystifying. Mortality from most infectious diseases had declined
sharply pre-vaccination, primarily due to better nutrition, better
sanitation, and improved palliative care. But mortality and sequelae
were levelling out, and didn't resume their decline until vaccination
came in. That's a fact that none of your handwaving will be able to
make vanish.

As I predicted a while ago, you'll be waving this terminological
mistake of mine as long as your palsied hands can operate a keyboard.
I suppose it makes you feel better, and allows you to hope that it'll
distract the readership from some of the howlers you've produced. You
know, the ones about how vitamin C converts one element into another,
that kind of thing.

What, you expect corporations to have consciences? I sure don't. As
long as "maximizing shareholder return" is the watchword, you're going
to see exactly the sort of behavior we see now. But if you think your
paymasters at the supplement companies are any better, you probably
should increase your thorazine dosage.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In message <1167277586.624469.271950@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:

I presume you mean that mortality occurs without infection?

Otherwise, reduction in incidence would have a direct impact on
mortality. Obviously, since there are other factors that influence
mortality the reverse is not the case.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+