From: PeterB - Original on
On Feb 10, 6:44 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 5:55 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Let's not forget that he was developing a "transfer factor" that would
> > > > > > > substitute for the measles vaccine. His market, thus his income, would
> > > > > > > be greatly enhanced if there was widespread distrust of the MMR
> > > > > > > vaccine, which is clearly his intent.
>
> > > > > > You keep repeating this, Yet, I haven't seen any proof of such a claim.
>
> > > > > I posted it elsewhere and how he admitted to it in the GMC
> > > > > proceedings.
>
> > > > If you were to tell the truth, would you go "pop" with a poof of
> > > > smoke, or just morph into a pile of locusts?
>
> > > Listen, stupid, I posted a quote from the GMC report where Wakefield
> > > admitted ...
>
> > One may "admit" to activities that are illegal, but there was nothing
> > illegal about it.
>
> Dipwad, I never claimed there was anything illegal about it.

Yet you use words like "admit" to imply wrongdoing. Typical pharmnut
behavior.

> Now, if you admit that you are the twin brother of strawman and love
> eating red herring, we would be getting somewhere, and you would be
> getting closer to a cure.

The only "straw" here is between your ears.

> > > he was developing a measles transfer factor which would
> > > substitute for a vaccine. Even you are not so stupid as to believe
> > > that if he damaged the market for MMR, that his potion would be a
> > > better seller, and thus make him more money.
>
> > If you mean it's a shame that MMR continues to be used despite the
> > lack of evidence for its safety, regardless of Wakefield's research,
> > I agree.
>
> There is plenty of evidence for its safety. The fact that you do not
> know it, does not mean it does not exist.

What you refer to as "plenty of evidence" doesn't qualify. Put up, or
shut up.

> In fact, if your "knew" it, you would weasal around that.

I believe you earned the title "Weasel Extraordinaire" when you were
caught denying your support of another for making false claims
regarding measles infection and death rates. You had chimed that I
would have no response in rebuttal. When I immediately produced
published science proving you both wrong, you lied that you had said
anything at all, only admitting to it later when I wouldn't let it
go. Remember?

> You will
> NEVER admit a vaccine is safe and effective, even if a ton of evidence
> is produced.

What makes you "think" I would not weigh the evidence should it be
presented? Your endless excuses for failing to provide this secret
"evidence" you talk about is quite amusing.

From: PeterB - Original on
On Feb 11, 4:42 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:25 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Kevysmom wrote:
> > > >>>> You mean the man who developed the RotaTEQ vaccine that has saved tens
> > > >>>> of thousands of children's lives and has prevented even more
> > > >>>> hospitalizations? Of course he should be well compensated for that.
> > > >>>> As for making more money from the vaccine....not possible.-
> > > >>> How has the Rota TEQ vaccine saved tens of thousands of lives?
> > > >> Because diarrhea is one of the leading causes of infant death around
> > > >> the world. The last I heard there were 55,000 hospital admissions a
> > > >> year in the US as a result of rotavirus infection.
>
> > > > I dont believe those numbers, and I certainly dont believe very many
> > > > infants die from diarrhea in the US.(Dehydration is curable with a
> > > > simple thing called an IV) Maybe in third world countries where they
> > > > drink very contaminated polluted water.
>
> > > Please engage your brain. He didn't write that 55,000 kids a year die in
> > > the US from dehydration. Rather, 55,000 kids are admitted to the
> > > hospital. Around 50 kids are killed each year from rotavirus.
>
> > > According to the World Health Organization, about 1.5 million kids die
> > > each year from diarrhea.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/index.html
>
> > > How sad.
>
> > But not for lack of vaccine, despite your repeated use of such logical
> > fallacies.-
>
> They die from a vaccine preventable disease, Rotavirus.

The term, "vaccine preventable disease" makes the implicit but
unproven claim that vaccines prevent disease. Try backing up your
claims with something other than hot air.
From: dr_jeff on
PeterB - Original wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:42 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 4:25 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Kevysmom wrote:
>>>>>>>> You mean the man who developed the RotaTEQ vaccine that has saved tens
>>>>>>>> of thousands of children's lives and has prevented even more
>>>>>>>> hospitalizations? Of course he should be well compensated for that.
>>>>>>>> As for making more money from the vaccine....not possible.-
>>>>>>> How has the Rota TEQ vaccine saved tens of thousands of lives?
>>>>>> Because diarrhea is one of the leading causes of infant death around
>>>>>> the world. The last I heard there were 55,000 hospital admissions a
>>>>>> year in the US as a result of rotavirus infection.
>>>>> I dont believe those numbers, and I certainly dont believe very many
>>>>> infants die from diarrhea in the US.(Dehydration is curable with a
>>>>> simple thing called an IV) Maybe in third world countries where they
>>>>> drink very contaminated polluted water.
>>>> Please engage your brain. He didn't write that 55,000 kids a year die in
>>>> the US from dehydration. Rather, 55,000 kids are admitted to the
>>>> hospital. Around 50 kids are killed each year from rotavirus.
>>>> According to the World Health Organization, about 1.5 million kids die
>>>> each year from diarrhea.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/index.html
>>>> How sad.
>>> But not for lack of vaccine, despite your repeated use of such logical
>>> fallacies.-
>> They die from a vaccine preventable disease, Rotavirus.
>
> The term, "vaccine preventable disease" makes the implicit but
> unproven claim that vaccines prevent disease. Try backing up your
> claims with something other than hot air.

Yes, the claim is implicit. It is also proven:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5841a2.htm?s_cid=mm5841a2_e
http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/354/1/11

Yes, the effectiveness of the Rotavirus vaccine has been proven. PERIOD.

Jeff
From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 11, 5:19 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:44 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 5:55 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Let's not forget that he was developing a "transfer factor" that would
> > > > > > > > substitute for the measles vaccine. His market, thus his income, would
> > > > > > > > be greatly enhanced if there was widespread distrust of the MMR
> > > > > > > > vaccine, which is clearly his intent.
>
> > > > > > > You keep repeating this, Yet, I haven't seen any proof of such a claim.
>
> > > > > > I posted it elsewhere and how he admitted to it in the GMC
> > > > > > proceedings.
>
> > > > > If you were to tell the truth, would you go "pop" with a poof of
> > > > > smoke, or just morph into a pile of locusts?
>
> > > > Listen, stupid, I posted a quote from the GMC report where Wakefield
> > > > admitted ...
>
> > > One may "admit" to activities that are illegal, but there was nothing
> > > illegal about it.
>
> > Dipwad, I never claimed there was anything illegal about it.
>
> Yet you use words like "admit" to imply wrongdoing.  Typical pharmnut
> behavior.

Only in your idiotsyncratic use of the English language.

> > Now, if you admit that you are the twin brother of strawman and love
> > eating red herring, we would be getting somewhere, and you would be
> > getting closer to a cure.
>
> The only "straw" here is between your ears.

Nope, dope. Strawman and red herring are you highest skills.

> > > > he was developing a measles transfer factor which would
> > > > substitute for a vaccine. Even you are not so stupid as to believe
> > > > that if he damaged the market for MMR, that his potion would be a
> > > > better seller, and thus make him more money.
>
> > > If you mean it's a shame that MMR continues to be used despite the
> > > lack of evidence for its safety, regardless of Wakefield's research,
> > > I agree.
>
> > There is plenty of evidence for its safety. The fact that you do not
> > know it, does not mean it does not exist.
>
> What you refer to as "plenty of evidence" doesn't qualify.  Put up, or
> shut up.

Stuff it. The fact is that you are too lazy to look it up for
yourself.

> > In fact, if your "knew" it, you would weasal around that.
>
> I believe you earned the title "Weasel Extraordinaire" when you were
> caught denying your support of another for making false claims
> regarding measles infection and death rates.  You had chimed that I
> would have no response in rebuttal.  When I immediately produced
> published science proving you both wrong, you lied that you had said
> anything at all, only admitting to it later when I wouldn't let it
> go.   Remember?

Revisionism

>
> > You will
> > NEVER admit a vaccine is safe and effective, even if a ton of evidence
> > is produced.
>
> What makes you "think" I would not weigh the evidence should it be
> presented?  

Your past behavior. There is no reason for anyone to believe that you
1) are capable of weighing evidence

Your endless excuses for failing to provide this secret
> "evidence" you talk about is quite amusing.-

Like I said, with your lack of intellectual honesty, there is no
point.

From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 11, 6:18 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> PeterB - Original wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 4:42 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 4:25 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 10, 9:18 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> >>>> Kevysmom wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You mean the man who developed the RotaTEQ vaccine that has saved tens
> >>>>>>>> of thousands of children's lives and has prevented even more
> >>>>>>>> hospitalizations? Of course he should be well compensated for that.
> >>>>>>>> As for making more money from the vaccine....not possible.-
> >>>>>>> How has the Rota TEQ vaccine saved tens of thousands of lives?
> >>>>>> Because diarrhea is one of the leading causes of infant death around
> >>>>>> the world. The last I heard there were 55,000 hospital admissions a
> >>>>>> year in the US as a result of rotavirus infection.
> >>>>> I dont believe those numbers, and I certainly dont believe very many
> >>>>> infants die from diarrhea in the US.(Dehydration is curable with a
> >>>>> simple thing called an IV) Maybe in third world countries where they
> >>>>> drink very contaminated polluted water.
> >>>> Please engage your brain. He didn't write that 55,000 kids a year die in
> >>>> the US from dehydration. Rather, 55,000 kids are admitted to the
> >>>> hospital. Around 50 kids are killed each year from rotavirus.
> >>>> According to the World Health Organization, about 1.5 million kids die
> >>>> each year from diarrhea.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/index.html
> >>>> How sad.
> >>> But not for lack of vaccine, despite your repeated use of such logical
> >>> fallacies.-
> >> They die from a vaccine preventable disease, Rotavirus.
>
> > The term, "vaccine preventable disease" makes the implicit but
> > unproven claim that vaccines prevent disease.  Try backing up your
> > claims with something other than hot air.
>
> Yes, the claim is implicit. It is also proven:http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5841a2.htm?s_cid=mm5841a2_ehttp://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/354/1/11
>
> Yes, the effectiveness of the Rotavirus vaccine has been proven. PERIOD.

Peter is too lazy to click. Here is the abstract:

Volume 354:11-22 January 5, 2006 Number 1
Next



Safety and Efficacy of an Attenuated Vaccine against Severe Rotavirus
Gastroenteritis

Guillermo M. Ruiz-Palacios, M.D., Irene Pérez-Schael, M.Sc., F. Raúl
Velázquez, M.D., Hector Abate, M.D., Thomas Breuer, M.D., SueAnn Costa
Clemens, M.D., Brigitte Cheuvart, Ph.D., Felix Espinoza, M.D., Paul
Gillard, M.D., Bruce L. Innis, M.D., Yolanda Cervantes, M.D.,
Alexandre C. Linhares, M.D., Pío López, M.D., Mercedes Macías-Parra,
M.D., Eduardo Ortega-Barría, M.D., Vesta Richardson, M.D., Doris
Maribel Rivera-Medina, M.D., Luis Rivera, M.D., Belén Salinas, M.D.,
Noris Pavía-Ruz, M.D., Jorge Salmerón, M.D., Ricardo Rüttimann, M.D.,
Juan Carlos Tinoco, M.D., Pilar Rubio, M.D., Ernesto Nuñez, M.D., M.
Lourdes Guerrero, M.D., Juan Pablo Yarzábal, M.D., Silvia Damaso,
M.Sc., Nadia Tornieporth, M.D., Xavier Sáez-Llorens, M.D., Rodrigo F.
Vergara, M.D., Timo Vesikari, M.D., Alain Bouckenooghe, M.D., Ralf
Clemens, M.D., Ph.D., Béatrice De Vos, M.D., Miguel O'Ryan, M.D., for
the Human Rotavirus Vaccine Study Group






Full Text
PDF
PDA Full Text
PowerPoint Slide Set
Supplementary Material






Editorial
by Glass, R. I.

Letters






Add to Personal Archive
Add to Citation Manager
Notify a Friend
E-mail When Cited
E-mail When Letters Appear






PubMed Citation



ABSTRACT

Background The safety and efficacy of an attenuated G1P[8] human
rotavirus (HRV) vaccine were tested in a randomized, double-blind,
phase 3 trial.

Methods We studied 63,225 healthy infants from 11 Latin American
countries and Finland who received two oral doses of either the HRV
vaccine (31,673 infants) or placebo (31,552 infants) at approximately
two months and four months of age. Severe gastroenteritis episodes
were identified by active surveillance. The severity of disease was
graded with the use of the 20-point Vesikari scale. Vaccine efficacy
was evaluated in a subgroup of 20,169 infants (10,159 vaccinees and
10,010 placebo recipients).

Results The efficacy of the vaccine against severe rotavirus
gastroenteritis and against rotavirus-associated hospitalization was
85 percent (P<0.001 for the comparison with placebo) and reached 100
percent against more severe rotavirus gastroenteritis. Hospitalization
for diarrhea of any cause was reduced by 42 percent (95 percent
confidence interval, 29 to 53 percent; P<0.001). During the 31-day
window after each dose, six vaccine recipients and seven placebo
recipients had definite intussusception (difference in risk, –0.32 per
10,000 infants; 95 percent confidence interval, –2.91 to 2.18;
P=0.78).

Conclusions Two oral doses of the live attenuated G1P[8] HRV vaccine
were highly efficacious in protecting infants against severe rotavirus
gastroenteritis, significantly reduced the rate of severe
gastroenteritis from any cause, and were not associated with an
increased risk of intussusception.

Watch Petey play his semantics and other games.