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

"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/

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....

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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....