If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
"Sdores" wrote in message .. . "Jan Drew" wrote in message m... "Sdores" wrote in message ... "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... (snipped for clarity) The fact your sponsors You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? Did you not notice that this is cross posted to another group other than MHA? UM MOM Susan Nah, Sue he didn't notice that. Your point? My name is Susan but of course you knew that. You also know that UM in my signature doesn't stand for my my son's initials so knock yourself out being rude. My point is that this thread is posted to more than MHA! UM MOM Susan Your opinion of just plain rude..................... http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/RodHayton.htm |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
"Jan Drew" wrote in message t... "Sdores" wrote in message .. . "Jan Drew" wrote in message m... "Sdores" wrote in message ... "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... (snipped for clarity) The fact your sponsors You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? Did you not notice that this is cross posted to another group other than MHA? UM MOM Susan Nah, Sue he didn't notice that. Your point? My name is Susan but of course you knew that. You also know that UM in my signature doesn't stand for my my son's initials so knock yourself out being rude. My point is that this thread is posted to more than MHA! UM MOM Susan Your opinion of just plain rude..................... Says the mha authority on polite decorum. -- ;o) Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB wrote:
David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Which, in and of itself, is nothing to condemn. Guess again. Promotion of vaccine should be confined to venues showing no interest in properly tested pharmaceuticals, such as drug maker websites and courtroom fools like Barrett. IOW, Petey does not like to read contrary opinions and facts. Petey, if you do not like it, use your kill file. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? Yes, your paranoia is simply shining through again. How creative. Actually, David is way to kind. You throw those moronic comments around like anyone is going to believe you. What it does is that it provides proof that you have no arguments. didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your hands. Not so. You have a *possible* mess on your hands. You only have an actual mess if the intervention does, in fact, have nasty side effects that are common enough to make its use a bad idea. All pharmaceuticals have side effects, but no one knows for whom a drug will be deadly, as opposed to just "nasty." All pharmaceuticals MAY have side effects in some people, but not all people. However, they do have positive effects in most people using them. It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's also the case with vaccine. For the first two, we have actual data backing up your assertion. For vaccines, we do not. Sure we do, it's called VAERs. You said the other day that even an imperfect collection of data on dietary suppelements would be better than nothing, but this argument magically fails when it comes to a collection of patient complaints following vaccination. Petey, VAERs is damaged goods, like the study I posted showed. It is not the equivalent of an imperfect collection of data on dietary supplements, as the latter has not had an intentional skewing of the data. Your analogy fails. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine. All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more than guesswork. It wouldn't be "guesswork" in your mind if it were backing up your beliefs about the horrors of vaccines, now would it? Evidence based medicine means assessing the risk adjusted benefit for any medical intervention. If you don't do that, you're engaging in quackery. If people get sick following vaccine and bother to report it, it's worth reviewing. It doesn't mean every problem will be related to vaccine, but you can't know the extent of the problem if you racing toward your next vaccine campaign with your eyes closed. Evidence based medicine means much more than that. Despite your scorn for "tally stroking health surveys," you've yet to prove any convincing rationale for why they are bad. As I've said repeatedly, they don't prove anything more than association. Getting wet while doing a rain dance.... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB: I'm still waiting for you to retract your assertion that I am "sponsored" by the vaccine industry (or any other entity, for that matter). Here's your chance to show us what kind of man you are. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Vaccine-man wrote:
PeterB: I'm still waiting for you to retract your assertion that I am "sponsored" by the vaccine industry (or any other entity, for that matter). Here's your chance to show us what kind of man you are. Do NOT hold your breath. You will have a very long wait. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Which, in and of itself, is nothing to condemn. Guess again. Promotion of vaccine should be confined to venues showing no interest in properly tested pharmaceuticals, such as drug maker websites and courtroom fools like Barrett. IOW, Petey does not like to read contrary opinions and facts. Petey, if you do not like it, use your kill file. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? Yes, your paranoia is simply shining through again. How creative. Actually, David is way to kind. You throw those moronic comments around like anyone is going to believe you. What it does is that it provides proof that you have no arguments. Saying that doesn't make it so, Markey. You have to provide a logical argument in support of your defense of the drug makers. Otherwise, it's just promotion. didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your hands. Not so. You have a *possible* mess on your hands. You only have an actual mess if the intervention does, in fact, have nasty side effects that are common enough to make its use a bad idea. All pharmaceuticals have side effects, but no one knows for whom a drug will be deadly, as opposed to just "nasty." All pharmaceuticals MAY have side effects in some people, but not all people. However, they do have positive effects in most people using them. Says who? You? It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's also the case with vaccine. For the first two, we have actual data backing up your assertion. For vaccines, we do not. Sure we do, it's called VAERs. You said the other day that even an imperfect collection of data on dietary suppelements would be better than nothing, but this argument magically fails when it comes to a collection of patient complaints following vaccination. Petey, VAERs is damaged goods, like the study I posted showed. It is not the equivalent of an imperfect collection of data on dietary supplements, as the latter has not had an intentional skewing of the data. Your analogy fails. Markey would have us believe that tens of thousands of parents, whose children fall ill after getting vaccinated, are making crank calls, and don't really care about their little ones. But he says if a law required manufacturers of dietary supplements to report complaints they get from customers, that would be useful. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine. All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more than guesswork. It wouldn't be "guesswork" in your mind if it were backing up your beliefs about the horrors of vaccines, now would it? Evidence based medicine means assessing the risk adjusted benefit for any medical intervention. If you don't do that, you're engaging in quackery. If people get sick following vaccine and bother to report it, it's worth reviewing. It doesn't mean every problem will be related to vaccine, but you can't know the extent of the problem if you racing toward your next vaccine campaign with your eyes closed. Evidence based medicine means much more than that. Please do share your vast knowledge of modern medicine with the newsgroup. I can hardly wait. Despite your scorn for "tally stroking health surveys," you've yet to prove any convincing rationale for why they are bad. I never said they were "bad." I said they don't prove anything. Virology that rests on observational studies alone is just marketing. As I've said repeatedly, they don't prove anything more than association. Getting wet while doing a rain dance.... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? They don't sponsor me in any way. I have no affiliation with any vaccine company. Please issue a retraction of your assertion. As long as your promotion of vaccine continues, I will continue to point out your marketing efforts on behalf of the drug makers. didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your hands. It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's also the case with vaccine. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine. All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more than guesswork. Nonsense. There are plenty of examples of vaccines controlling infectious diseases. Take the hard lesson Japan learned about vaccines and pertussis. In the early 1970s, Japan didn't see any deaths from pertussis. But becauses of two deaths within two years of one another (that may or may not have been associated with the vaccine), legislators passed a law delaying the first pertussis immunization to two years of age (despite objections from the public health community). Within a few years the incidence of pertussis skyrocketed and there were dozens of deaths and hundreds with permanent disabilities. They then returned to their previous vaccination regimen and within a few years the incidence of pertussis returned to the earlier levels and deaths were virtually unheard of. Vaccines work and are safe, plain and simple. Observational studies are interesting, but they don't address drug or vaccine safety. It's entirely possible than some vaccines redistribute disease or mortality incidence, but proving their risk-adjusted benefit requires randomized studies in treated and untreated patients. There is a lifetime in which to experience the side effects of a drug or medical intervention. Just because a study period concludes doesn't mean the clock stops for the patient. VAERS is still a place to start, but the drug makers cannot be trusted to study the products they intend to market. Debacles like HRT and Vioxx "Debacles"? Wow you make it sound like doom and gloom. Besides, what do these have to do with vaccines. Please stay on topic. My point is that the drug makers are an inappropriate source of safety data for products they themselves market. And if you don't think an elevated risk of stroke, breast cancer, heart attack, and attendant lifespan reductions are a negative for public health, why are you posting to mha? I don't follow mha. I follow mkh. I didn't start this thread, so I reply to all groups that are listed in the original post. (so-called "evidence based medicine") should be proof enough of that. It's a little late, therefore, to ask Mr. fox to carry your eggs. You can bury your head in the sand - that is your prerogative. But keep in mind, if you leave it buried long enough you'll suffer brain damage, and even death. The total loss of neuronal activity can be attributed to your comments in this post. Mission accomplished. I doubt it. I meant *your* mission, not mine. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
In message .com, PeterB
wrote: Observational studies are interesting, but they don't address drug or vaccine safety. *It's entirely possible than some vaccines redistribute disease or mortality incidence, but proving their risk-adjusted benefit requires randomized studies in treated and untreated patients. *There is a lifetime in which to experience the side effects of a drug or medical intervention. *Just because a study period concludes doesn't mean the clock stops for the patient. You've made your point -- for all of the complete longitudinal cases on record, all vaccinated subjects showed a 100% mortality rate. -- begin signature.exe A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text. Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing? A:*Top-posting. Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
D. C. Sessions wrote: In message .com, PeterB wrote: Observational studies are interesting, but they don't address drug or vaccine safety. It's entirely possible than some vaccines redistribute disease or mortality incidence, but proving their risk-adjusted benefit requires randomized studies in treated and untreated patients. There is a lifetime in which to experience the side effects of a drug or medical intervention. Just because a study period concludes doesn't mean the clock stops for the patient. You've made your point -- for all of the complete longitudinal cases on record, all vaccinated subjects showed a 100% mortality rate. I suppose your view is that vaccines don't need to be tested using long-term RCTs in order to assess safety, simply because everyone dies anyway. I guess that takes most of the guesswork out of everything. It's stupid, but simple. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
VAERS Data: A possible source of bias
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote: PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: Vaccine-man wrote: PeterB wrote: The fact your sponsors Excuse me? What do you mean by my "sponsors"? You are here defending the vaccine makers and their products in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives, which means you are promoting vaccine. Which, in and of itself, is nothing to condemn. Guess again. Promotion of vaccine should be confined to venues showing no interest in properly tested pharmaceuticals, such as drug maker websites and courtroom fools like Barrett. IOW, Petey does not like to read contrary opinions and facts. Petey, if you do not like it, use your kill file. Your sponsors are those who have a vested interest in that effort. Simple enough? Yes, your paranoia is simply shining through again. How creative. Actually, David is way to kind. You throw those moronic comments around like anyone is going to believe you. What it does is that it provides proof that you have no arguments. Saying that doesn't make it so, Markey. True. That is why your posts are so useful, i.e., they prove that you have no proof for your arguments. You have to provide a logical argument in support of your defense of the drug makers. Otherwise, it's just promotion. Did you get the email where your promotion from moron to idiot was denied? If so, it was sent in error. didn't properly study the effects or safety of vaccines before marketing them is why we're in this mess. There is no mess. Sure there is. Whenever you don't actually know the risk-adjusted benefit for a particular medical intervention, you have a mess on your hands. Not so. You have a *possible* mess on your hands. You only have an actual mess if the intervention does, in fact, have nasty side effects that are common enough to make its use a bad idea. All pharmaceuticals have side effects, but no one knows for whom a drug will be deadly, as opposed to just "nasty." All pharmaceuticals MAY have side effects in some people, but not all people. However, they do have positive effects in most people using them. Says who? You? It was the case with HRT, it was the case with Vioxx, and it's also the case with vaccine. For the first two, we have actual data backing up your assertion. For vaccines, we do not. Sure we do, it's called VAERs. You said the other day that even an imperfect collection of data on dietary suppelements would be better than nothing, but this argument magically fails when it comes to a collection of patient complaints following vaccination. Petey, VAERs is damaged goods, like the study I posted showed. It is not the equivalent of an imperfect collection of data on dietary supplements, as the latter has not had an intentional skewing of the data. Your analogy fails. Markey would have us believe that tens of thousands of parents, whose children fall ill after getting vaccinated, are making crank calls, and don't really care about their little ones. No, moron, I would not have anyone believe that they are making "crank calls". I would have people understand that there is evidence to show that VAERs is damage due to the thimerosal-vulture-attorneys having their clients, who are dupes of the Mercury Militia, to make those calls. That is what the study I posted said. You do have a short memory. But he says if a law required manufacturers of dietary supplements to report complaints they get from customers, that would be useful. That would definitely be useful as the customers are serving as post-marketing test subjects who would expose the supplements to a wide variety of people and medical conditions, etc. You, of course, see nothing wrong with using people as post marketing test subjects. A lot of people are alive and well today because of vaccines. Studies show that not more than 3.5% of the decline in infectious disease mortality occured after introduction of vaccine, and no proof exists to show what portion of that 3.5% can be attributed to vaccine. All you have is tally stroking health surveys, which is little more than guesswork. It wouldn't be "guesswork" in your mind if it were backing up your beliefs about the horrors of vaccines, now would it? Evidence based medicine means assessing the risk adjusted benefit for any medical intervention. If you don't do that, you're engaging in quackery. If people get sick following vaccine and bother to report it, it's worth reviewing. It doesn't mean every problem will be related to vaccine, but you can't know the extent of the problem if you racing toward your next vaccine campaign with your eyes closed. Evidence based medicine means much more than that. Please do share your vast knowledge of modern medicine with the newsgroup. I can hardly wait. Evidence based medicine concerns itself with growing and evolving knowledge, from fundamental science to direct affects on people, and the study of those effects. Supplement based medicine concerns itself with marketing and avoiding government oversight at all costs, including the lives of their customers. Despite your scorn for "tally stroking health surveys," you've yet to prove any convincing rationale for why they are bad. I never said they were "bad." I said they don't prove anything. Virology that rests on observational studies alone is just marketing. As I've said repeatedly, they don't prove anything more than association. Getting wet while doing a rain dance.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Drs. Geier say ... in rebuttal to Quacks Gorski & Probert | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 65 | June 5th 06 02:11 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | January 18th 06 05:47 AM |
10 day old stolen 6 years ago - WHY does the state have jurisdiction? | Kane | General | 27 | March 12th 04 05:51 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |