From: Mark Probert on
On Jan 20, 5:32 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2:11 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:00 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <d4d3591c-377b-4838-a7b3-b3fc30b1e...(a)x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
>
> > > Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 18, 10:57=A0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had=
> > > >  NOT
> > > > > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of =
> > > > poli=3D
> > > > > > o
> > > > > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > > > > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT ha=
> > > > ve t=3D
> > > > > > o
> > > > > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any o=
> > > > f th=3D
> > > > > > e
> > > > > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that h=
> > > > ave
> > > > > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the =
> > > > othe=3D
> > > > > > r
> > > > > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should =
> > > > have
> > > > > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vacc=
> > > > ine
> > > > > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > > > > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my famil=
> > > > y
> > > > > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> > > > > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> > > > > > past.
>
> > > > > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
> > > > > tested" and found the following:
>
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > Snipo
>
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > > > > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> > > > > assert ... Hardly, and
> > > > > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. .... autho=
> > > > rities
> > > > > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...http://w=
> > > > ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > > > > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> > > > Snip
>
> > > > I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> > > > source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
> > > > demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> > > > fiasco, etc.
>
> > > > What I left supports my comment.
>
> > > > Now, please come back with something that is factual.
>
> > > If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, please do so.-
>
> > Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
> > tested, please avoid them.
>
> Your refusal to cite any proof supporting your claims using the excuse
> that I would discredit it just proves you have no proof.

I never claimed that. I pointed out that you torture logic, misstate
what is written, quote mine, use idiotsyncratic terminology, and all
of your other ruses, makes it a waste of time.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
>
>
> > Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
> > seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: PeterB - Original on
On Jan 16, 6:14 pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> >graphically athttp://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html. Infectious
> >disease mortality declined dramatically prior to availability of most
> >vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and
> >R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in
> >disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
> >measures introduced for the control of these diseases.  

===== part 2 of response to Peter Parry =====

> The very valid point Beaglehole and  Bonita make of course is that
> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> cost.  They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
> were either insignificant or unnecessary...

Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
20th century.

>, you should read the whole book.

Perhaps you should, as only a few portions are devoted to infectious
disease. I feel certain you had never heard of this book until
reading my original citation of it several years ago in the
newsgroup.

> >Whether
> >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
>
> Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
> contrary.

If that was true, you would cite the evidence instead of whining about
the evidence now in front of you.

> Your figure is meaningless.  

No, it isn't. The citation provided states that the impact of
measures introduced for the control of infectious disease during most
of the 20th century was, AT MOST, just 3.5%. That means it could have
been .5%, or even less.

> No one questions that massive
> improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> and public health measures.  

You are forgetting that food fortification programs in the USA,
Britain, and other countries began much later and greatly reduced
rates of death by measles, incidence of pellagra, rickets, anaemia,
xerophthalmia, goiter, birth defects, low IQ, and other maladies.
Importantly, according to a WHO report, "Subclinical vitamin A
deficiency is also associated with an increased risk of child
mortality, especially from diarrhoea and measles. A meta-analysis
demonstrated that high dose vitamin A supplementation can reduce
mortality from measles by as much as 50%. Another analysis found that
improvement of vitamin A status, whether by supplementation or
fortification, decreased all-cause mortality in children aged between
6 months and 5 years by 23%..." Vaccine cannot begin to approach what
vitamin A, all by itself, can do to save lives.

> No one doubts that in that time the
> effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
> However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically.  

Not really. If I'm wrong, what published science are you relying on
to arrive at your opinion?

> For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> makes no difference 100%.  With vaccination given pre-exposure and
> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero.  There is no
> other effective treatment.

Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.html

> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced.  By 1991 it had dropped to
> about 3 cases per 100,000.  During that time period there was no
> significant  alteration in standards of living or social health.

As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.

> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000.  By 1998 it was about 5
> per 100,000.  In the same time there were no significant social
> changes.

Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.

> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> down to 800 because of vaccination.  Since then it has increased again
> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> administering it.  I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
> views??

Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
particular has been explained here many times. I suggest you check
the archives.

> >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> >to use of vaccine was profound.  In one case, those declines occurred
> >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.
>
> Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?

You are free to cite any published science you feel supports your
alternate view that vaccines are safe and effective. So far, you
haven't done that.

> > If the vast majority of
> >declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
> >were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
> >would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine.  
>
> It would?  The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
> less severe?

Such a macro change would have reduced incidence but not the severity
of case infection. The historical evidence cited shows that severe
illness from exposure to infectious disease declined in the absence of
vaccine and so naturally the decline continued past vaccine
introduction.

> >And that is exactly what happened.  
>
> No it didn't

No Data + No Science = No Proof of Claim.
From: Mark Probert on
On Jan 20, 9:21 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:


>
> No Data + No Science = No Proof of Claim.

That is your formula for success.
From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 20, 7:29�pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <f7b96d5e-06be-4d78-84cf-64d6c0404...(a)36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 4:47=A0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b019aab1-6088-4cf6-a5e0-bea5e00bc...(a)x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
>
> > > Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 20, 3:00=3DA0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <d4d3591c-377b-4838-a7b3-b3fc30b1e...(a)x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, M=
> > ark
>
> > > > > Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 18, 10:57=3D3DA0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines =
> > if I=3D
> > > > =A0had=3D3D
> > > > > > =3DA0NOT
> > > > > > > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a vi=
> > ctim=3D
> > > > =A0of =3D3D
> > > > > > poli=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderf=
> > ul t=3D
> > > > hat
> > > > > > > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio d=
> > o NO=3D
> > > > T ha=3D3D
> > > > > > ve t=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt th=
> > at a=3D
> > > > ny o=3D3D
> > > > > > f th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close frien=
> > d th=3D
> > > > at h=3D3D
> > > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines.=
> > �On =3D
> > > > the =3D3D
> > > > > > othe=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they=
> > �sho=3D
> > > > uld =3D3D
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that t=
> > hey =3D
> > > > vacc=3D3D
> > > > > > ine
> > > > > > > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines sh=
> > ould=3D
> > > > =A0be
> > > > > > > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of =
> > my f=3D
> > > > amil=3D3D
> > > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> > > > > > > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in =
> > year=3D
> > > > s
> > > > > > > > past.
>
> > > > > > > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not prop=
> > erly
> > > > > > > tested" and found the following:
>
> > > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > Snipo
>
> > > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ....
> > > > > > > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, exp=
> > erts
> > > > > > > assert ... Hardly, and
> > > > > > > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. .=
> > .. a=3D
> > > > utho=3D3D
> > > > > > rities
> > > > > > > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...=
> > http=3D
> > > > ://w=3D3D
> > > > > > ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,....
> > > > > > > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> > > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> > > > > > source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consisten=
> > tly
> > > > > > demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> > > > > > fiasco, etc.
>
> > > > > > What I left supports my comment.
>
> > > > > > Now, please come back with something that is factual.
>
> > > > > If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, pl=
> > ease=3D
> > > > =A0do so.-
>
> > > > Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
> > > > tested, please avoid them.
>
> > > > Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
> > > > seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.
>
> > > About half the GP doctors refuse to take the vaccine because it has NOT
> > > been properly tested
>
> > How sad that so many GPs are not properly informed. BTW, care to PROVE
> > that statement?
>
> http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1682.html
>
> Healthcare workers revolt against vaccination while government plans mass
> immunization programmes -
>
> InfoWars - Two separate polls of GPs in Britain have revealed that one in
> two doctors have severe reservations over the safety of the forthcoming
> H1N1 flu vaccine, raising serious questions over the government's planned
> mass vaccination programme.
>
> A poll of doctors for Pulse magazine found that 49% would reject the
> vaccine with 9% still undecided.
>
> 56 of the 115 GPs surveyed said they did not intend to receive the jab,
> according to the UK's leading medical weekly publication for health
> professionals.
>
> A second poll conducted by GP magazine reveals that Up to 60% of GPs have
> severe doubts over the proposed vaccine. Of 216 GPs surveyed, 29% say they
> will outright refuse to be vaccinated, while a further 29% remain unsure.
> Only 41% of doctors said they would definitely take the shot.
>
> Of those who said they would not take the shot, 71% said they were
> concerned that the vaccine had "not been through sufficient trials to
> guarantee its safety". Over half, 50.4%, said they "believe that swine flu
> is too mild to justify taking the vaccine".
>
> The Department of Health sought to dismiss the results, declaring that the
> small number of responders to the surveys was not reflective of the
> opinions of all doctors.
>
> However, these figures also dovetail with those from a much larger Nursing
> Times magazine poll, that revealed 30% of all NHS nurses said they would
> refuse to be immunized, with another 33% saying they were unsure.
>
> Of the 30% of nurses who said they would refuse to be vaccinated, 60% said
> the reason was due to fears about the safety of the vaccine, following
> revelations that the shots will contain mercury and squalene and have also
> been linked with the killer nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Another
> 31% said they would refuse the vaccine because they did not consider the
> risk from swine flu to be great enough.
>
> The government has promised to vaccinate all health workers before
> Christmas at the latest, to deal with what it has described as the "second
> wave" of swine flu.
>
> The vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while the government
> has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits
> arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.
>
> Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse told the Daily Mail "The view among many
> doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a
> huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an
> unusually mild illness."
>
> Yet another new study, published in the Canadian journal Emerging Health
> Threats, found that the public also has grave reservations over the
> forthcoming vaccination campaign.
>
> Parents and health-care workers are reluctant to be immunized or vaccinate
> their children against a pandemic virus for fear that a drug would be
> brought to market with insufficient testing, reports the Globe and Mail.
>
> The study, which used a number of focus groups to establish the likely
> response of different people to a vaccine, concluded that people who
> believe alternative therapies and a good diet are a better option than
> vaccines need to be "won over".
>
> It is highly disturbing that one in two doctors have concerns over the
> safety of vaccines while the shots are being actively tested on members of
> the public, including children.
>
> Since it is now clear that the majority of the population will refuse to
> take the vaccine, it seems that the government�s only option will be to
> institute a mandatory program backed by force, or to drop plans for mass
> vaccination altogether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's proof. Mark S Probert has none.
From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 20, 7:57�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 5:32�pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2:11�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 3:00�pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <d4d3591c-377b-4838-a7b3-b3fc30b1e...(a)x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
>
> > > > Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 18, 10:57=A0pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had=
> > > > > �NOT
> > > > > > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of =
> > > > > poli=3D
> > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > > > > > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT ha=
> > > > > ve t=3D
> > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any o=
> > > > > f th=3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that h=
> > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the =
> > > > > othe=3D
> > > > > > > r
> > > > > > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should =
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vacc=
> > > > > ine
> > > > > > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > > > > > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my famil=
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> > > > > > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> > > > > > > past.
>
> > > > > > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
> > > > > > tested" and found the following:
>
> > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > Snipo
>
> > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > > > > > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> > > > > > assert ... Hardly, and
> > > > > > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... autho=
> > > > > rities
> > > > > > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ....http://w=
> > > > > ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > > > > > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> > > > > Snip
>
> > > > > I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> > > > > source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
> > > > > demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> > > > > fiasco, etc.
>
> > > > > What I left supports my comment.
>
> > > > > Now, please come back with something that is factual.
>
> > > > If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, please do so.-
>
> > > Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
> > > tested, please avoid them.
>
> > Your refusal to cite any proof supporting your claims using the excuse
> > that I would discredit it just proves you have no proof.
>
> I never claimed that. I pointed out that you torture logic, misstate
> what is written, quote mine, use idiotsyncratic terminology, and all
> of your other ruses, makes it a waste of time.

Then, what are you wasting your time? Have an insane need to agrue,
disbarred lawyer.
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
> > > Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
> > > seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Mark Robert Thorson
Next: Religious information