From: Jan Drew on
On Nov 4, 7:19�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >
> > Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA
> > does such extensive studies.
>
> > jeff
>
> No he wasn'thttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html
>
> "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
> effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers
> of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them,
> anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer
> at the FDA)

Jeffey, Peter. Joseph Utz put to shame again
From: Jan Drew on
On Nov 4, 9:31�am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com>

Mark S Probert calling names again. Showing more proof he lied when
he posted he read Torah everyday.

Backs himself into a corner again. Open mouth insert both feet.
From: Jan Drew on
On Nov 4, 9:32�am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:18�pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 8:20�pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > > >> john wrote:
> > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > > >>> and are depressed.
> > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> > > >> articles.
>
> > > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > > > to prove such safety.
>
> > > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed..
>
> > That must explain why you didn't post any.
>
> > > > �As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > > > responsibility to produce that data.
>
> > > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> > > your claims.
>
> > Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who
> > advocate the policy of intervention. �Only an irrational pharmnut
> > would claim otherwise. � Are you an irrational pharmnut?
>
> > > > �Unfortunately, you can't,
> > > > because it doesn't exist. � BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> > > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> > > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
>
> > > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
> > > vaccine reports"? It never did.
>
> > I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the
> > importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. �It's there, look
> > it up.
>
> > > VAERS was made to address a particular
> > > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> > > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> > More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> > vaccine prior to use. �But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> > developed for those yet to be affected.
>
> > > > You might want to talk
> > > > to your sponsors about that.
>
> > > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
>
> > You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-
>
> Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies,
> etc. as I have opten pointed out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Poor Mark S Probert. Whatever *opten* is.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif
From: dr_jeff on
Jan Drew wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:19�am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>> "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >
>>> Do you have a reference for this? He was probably explaining why the FDA
>>> does such extensive studies.
>>> jeff
>> No he wasn'thttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/morris_h.html
>>
>> "There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is
>> effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers
>> of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them,
>> anyway."------Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer
>> at the FDA)
>
> Jeffey, Peter. Joseph Utz put to shame again

Incorrect.

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

Volume 357:1373-1381 October 4, 2007 Number 14
NextNext

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the Community-Dwelling Elderly
Kristin L. Nichol, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., James D. Nordin, M.D., M.P.H.,
David B. Nelson, Ph.D., John P. Mullooly, Ph.D., and Eelko Hak, Ph.D.


ABSTRACT

Background Reliable estimates of the effectiveness of influenza vaccine
among persons 65 years of age and older are important for informed
vaccination policies and programs. Short-term studies may provide
misleading pictures of long-term benefits, and residual confounding may
have biased past results. This study examined the effectiveness of
influenza vaccine in seniors over the long term while addressing
potential bias and residual confounding in the results.

Methods Data were pooled from 18 cohorts of community-dwelling elderly
members of one U.S. health maintenance organization (HMO) for 1990�1991
through 1999�2000 and of two other HMOs for 1996�1997 through 1999�2000.
Logistic regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of the
vaccine for the prevention of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza
and death after adjustment for important covariates. Additional analyses
explored for evidence of bias and the potential effect of residual
confounding.

Results There were 713,872 person-seasons of observation. Most high-risk
medical conditions that were measured were more prevalent among
vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons. Vaccination was associated
with a 27% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or
influenza (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68
to 0.77) and a 48% reduction in the risk of death (adjusted odds ratio,
0.52; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.55). Estimates were generally stable across age
and risk subgroups. In the sensitivity analyses, we modeled the effect
of a hypothetical unmeasured confounder that would have caused
overestimation of vaccine effectiveness in the main analysis;
vaccination was still associated with statistically significant � though
lower � reductions in the risks of both hospitalization and death.

Conclusions During 10 seasons, influenza vaccination was associated with
significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or
influenza and in the risk of death among community-dwelling elderly
persons. Vaccine delivery to this high-priority group should be improved.
From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 4, 9:01 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:32 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 9:18 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 8:20 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > PeterB - Original wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote:
> > > > >> john wrote:
> > > > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw43QDiaDnE
> > > > >>> VaccinePrimer Oct23 mp4. Physicians and health professionals are now
> > > > >>> speaking out clearly of the risks and dangers of vaccination.
> > > > >>> We have tip toed around the American Medical model long enough. Vaccines
> > > > >>> come with a great risk including juvenile diabetes, asthma, ADD, ADHD, and
> > > > >>> Autism. And never mind the more subtle injury of teenagers who can't focus
> > > > >>> and are depressed.
> > > > >> That's totally untrue. Vaccines have been shown to be safe and
> > > > >> effective. They are not 100% safe: There are some risks. However, the
> > > > >> benefits greatly outweigh the risks. There is no evidence that vaccines
> > > > >> cause ADHD, autism, difficulty focusing or depression. If I am
> > > > >> incorrect, please provide the citations to the peer-reviewed journal
> > > > >> articles.
>
> > > > > In the absence of proper safety data on vaccine, it's use violates a
> > > > > responsible application of the Precautionary Principle, which states
> > > > > that proponents of any intervention (medical or otherwise) be required
> > > > > to prove such safety.
>
> > > > Yet, your assumption that there are not proper safety data are flawed.
>
> > > That must explain why you didn't post any.
>
> > > > > As a proponent of vaccine, it is YOUR
> > > > > responsibility to produce that data.
>
> > > > Actually, you got that backwards. It's your responsibility to support
> > > > your claims.
>
> > > Nope, the Precautionary Principle puts the onus of proof on those who
> > > advocate the policy of intervention. Only an irrational pharmnut
> > > would claim otherwise. Are you an irrational pharmnut?
>
> > > > > Unfortunately, you can't,
> > > > > because it doesn't exist. BTW, VAERS (which your own CDC claims is a
> > > > > valid repository of adverse vaccine reports) has not been vetted by
> > > > > the vaccine makers despite decades of access.
>
> > > > Really? When did the CDC claim that it is "valid repository of adverse
> > > > vaccine reports"? It never did.
>
> > > I never said it was a direct quote, however CDC acknowledges the
> > > importance of VAERS as a repository of such reports. It's there, look
> > > it up.
>
> > > > VAERS was made to address a particular
> > > > issue, that is, to catch any adverse events that might be occuring. It
> > > > is not meant to prove the safety of anything.
>
> > > More importantly, VAERS is not meant to determine the safety of
> > > vaccine prior to use. But if adverse events associated with vaccine
> > > were properly vetted, a meaningful review of vaccine safety could be
> > > developed for those yet to be affected.
>
> > > > > You might want to talk
> > > > > to your sponsors about that.
>
> > > > I can't do that. I don't have any sponsors.
>
> > > You mean you don't have the balls to admit it.-
>
> > Notice how Petey uses idiotsyncratic semantics, logical fallacies,
> > etc. as I have opten pointed out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Poor Mark S Probert.  Whatever *opten* is.

It is a typo, idiot. Don't you ever learn?

>
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -