Re: The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not

On May 10, 2:41=A0am, "HCN" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:75cf12ef-672e-4fa6-8f56-1e75e13cf467@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Pharma Vaccine Franchise is a Product of Marketing, Not Science
>
> ...
> .... =A0When you see them doing this in the newsroups using nothing
>
> >more than tally stroking or community surveys, ask them why they don't
> >cite real evidence do***enting their claims. =A0It's because it doesn't
> >exist.
>
> That is an interesting accusation, especially in this post. =A0While I
use=
d
> references that had actual URLs to real papers (not just the abstracts),
> PeterB chose to just list the name of the paper. =A0I looked at them,
and =
some
> could not be found, but others by the same authors were. =A0The
references=
 are
> classic cases of cherry picking. =A0For a further explanation of this
kind=
 of
> tactic see:http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm
>
> Let's see what we have here...
>
>
>
> >1. J.B. & McKinlay S.M. McKinlay. =A0 The Questionable Effect of
Medical
> >Intervention in the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the
> >Twentieth Century. =A0 Milbank Memorial Fund Q. 1977; 55:405-28.
>
> Ooooh, a paper from what looks like a mutual fund write-up, dated over
30
> years ago! =A0Let me put the title into Google and see what pops up...
> Exactly one hit, a Jan Drew post citing this
paper:http://www.archivum.inf=
o/sci.med/2006-09/msg00393.html
>
>
>
> >2. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, by
> >Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita, pg 43.
>
> This is a
textbook:http://www.amazon.com/Public-Health-Crossroads-Achievem=
ents-Prospects...
>
> Page 43 is not online, but acording to the Amazon page peek, it is the
pag=
e
> before a new chapter. =A0According to Google books it is a sectioncalled
> "Explaining Trends in Mortality".
>
> PeterB did not specify which edition.
>
>
>
> >3. Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buy**** EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live,
> >attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a
> >field situation. N Engl J Med =A01967;276:245-51
>
> Yet another timely paper, only 41 years old. =A0It even predates the
MMR!
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6016060?=A0...
not even an abstract
> available!
>
>
>
> >4. Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up
> >surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated
> >measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med
> >1979;162:328-32.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/515009...
again, no abstract
available.=

>
> This is even though searching for "Weibel RE" brings up papers with
> abstracts likehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/263873that
say "The
> patterns of antibody persistence 7.5 years after administration of
combine=
d
> measles-mumps-rubella (M-M-R) and mumps-rubella (Biavax) vaccines, 6
years=

> after administration of measles-rubella vaccine (M-R-VAX), and 4 years
aft=
er
> administration of measles-mumps vaccine (M-M-VAX) were the same as for
the=

> monovalent vaccines, indicating no alteration in the retention of
immunity=
..
> Subclinical reinfection evidenced by increase in homologous antibody
titer=

> was observed to follow vaccination the same as occurs after natural
> infection."
>
> and this whole
paper:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?t=
ool=3Dpubmed&pubme...
>
>
>
> >5. Sakaguchi, M., et al. "IgE antibody to gelatin in children with
> >immediate-type reactions to measles and mumps vaccines." J Allergy
> >Clin Immunol 1995; 96:563-65.
>
> I had to dig deep for this! =A0Dr. Sakaguchi has been very prolific, I
had=
 to
> the 25th page of PubMed hits to find
this:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm=
ed/7560672... again, no abstract available.
> Yet, he (or she) is the primary author of this fully available paper on
> allergic reactions to vaccine
components:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/=
articlerender.fcgi?tool=3Dpubmed&pubme...
> ... and it is basically the same subject!
> (by the way, Japan uses a different MMR than the one used in the USA,
and
> now the UK, so even if you were trying to baffle with bull****, you
chose
> the wrong bovine!).
>
>
>
> >6. Stewart, B.J.A., et al. "Re****ts of sensorineural deafness after
> >measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation." Archives of Diseases of
> >Childhood 1993; 69:153-54.
>
> Oh, my word! =A0This paper is actually
available:http://www.pubmedcentral.=
nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=3Dpubmed&pubme...
>
> It is a series of case re****ts. =A0In six of the cases the MMR was the
old=
er
> UK version with the Urabe strain of mumps, not the Jeryl Lynn of the
versi=
on
> approved for use in 1971 in the USA and now used in the UK.
>
>
>
> >7. McEwen, J. "Early-onset reaction after measles vaccination: further
> >Australian re****ts." Medical Journal of Australia 1983; 2:503-505.
>
> Just an abstract available of some case
re****ts:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go=
v/pubmed/6633364from 1982... again, not terribly
> timely.
>
> So in summary: =A0While I found papers and references that were fully
onli=
ne
> and included the URLs, PeterB chose to just list the paper title.
=A0That =
is
> not so bad, except he chose obscure papers from an author who had a full
> paper online on the same subject. =A0He also listed stuff on vaccines
not
> available in the USA (when Japan had an MMR, it was not the same as the
> American version), and he chose some papers that were case re****ts from
> decades ago.
>
> Okay, I confess, I used a paper that showed the costs of measles
infection=

> from 1990. =A0But in my defense, that was the last time we had a major
mea=
sles
> outbreak. =A0Though, through the diligent efforts of PeterB, JB Handley
an=
d
> the
>
> >Also seehttp://www.vran.org/vaccines/doctors/blaylock-covup.htm.
>
> Now this wants us to go and read something by a supplement salesman
named
> Blaylock. =A0More about him
here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell=
_Blaylock
>
> ... and it is all about reading one paragraph in a textbook... =A0but it
d=
oes
> not explain the declination of measles between 1972 and 1981!
>
>
Fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/case.=
...
> the incidence of measles in the USA went from 75000 to 3124, and the
numbe=
r
> of measles deaths went from 90 to 2. =A0Try your funny numbers game
there.=

>
> And while you are at it: =A0please explain why the numbers of measles
has =
been
> going UP in Japan, Austria, the UK and Switzerland (along with the USA
and=

> Canada).
>
>
>
>
>
> >Note: The paragraph cited in "Public Health at the Crossroads" is a
> >discussion of benefits derived from various medical interventions over
> >a period of time. =A0The authors are explicit that 3.5% (at most) of
the
> >decline in mortality may have been a result of medical measures
> >introduced for the control of infectious diseases during the 20th
> >century. =A0 In other words, at least 96.5% of those declines were
*not*
> >ascribable to medical interventions, and certainly not to vaccine
> >(which were largely non-existent during that time frame.) =A0Their
> >statement that various health measures were of =93major im****tance=94
to
> >public health is clearly a reference to overall morbidity and to
> >medical measures in total, not to a particular program or
> >intervention, =A0whereas vaccine could not have been relevant in
> >reducing mortality as noted, thus the statement cannot be used to void
> >the earlier observation. =A0 Resident Pharma-hoods, however, *will*
> >attempt to rewrite the published reference and data to say what their
> >sponsors require of them, but it won=92t =91t change the fact that
vaccin=
e
> >was too late to stem the majority of infectious disease mortality
> >during the last 100 years.-

excellent! Superb!

You proved, beyond any doubt, what I have said for so long...

PB stands for *P*ontificating *B*lowhard.