Good to see that people like you, John, have nothing to say when it
comes to public health decisions. Your imprudent decisions would cause
too much suffer and pain.

Good to see that people like you, John, have nothing to say when it
comes to public health decisions. Your imprudent decisions would cause
too much suffer and pain.

enjoy http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html

amazing really, MMR is killing way more than measles would be doing now,
with or without vaccination

and the vaccine never did anything anyway!

In article <39SdnW81wac18jXbnZ2dnUVZ8t2sn...@bt.com>,
The number of cases, however, dropped like a stone once the
vaccine came into wide use, and has stayed very low ever since.

2) There's no source (other than the unreliable Hilary Butler) for
the claim that over half of measles cases have been in people who
are vaccinated. Vaccination rates are in excess of 90% in many
populations, though, so even if 60% of cases did occur in the
vaccinated population, it still means the vaccine is working.

Here's an example to make it clearer. Suppose we have 100,000
children and the population is 90% vaccinated. Let's say there
are 1000 cases of measles in one year, and 60% of them are in
vaccinated children.

OK: 90,000 children are vaccinated, 10,000 are not. 600 of the
vaccinated kids get measles, 400 unvaccinated get measles. That
means that the odds of a vaccinated child getting measles are
600/90,000, or 0.67%, and the odds of a vaccinated child getting
measles are 400/10000, or 4%. Thus, the vaccinated child is six
times more likely to get measles.

On Jul 29, 11:52 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

Here's an example to make it clearer. Suppose we have 100,000
children and the population is 90% vaccinated. Let's say there
are 1000 cases of measles in one year, and 60% of them are in
vaccinated children.

OK: 90,000 children are vaccinated, 10,000 are not. 600 of the
vaccinated kids get measles, 400 unvaccinated get measles. That
means that the odds of a vaccinated child getting measles are
600/90,000, or 0.67%, and the odds of a vaccinated child getting
measles are 400/10000, or 4%. Thus, the vaccinated child is six
times more likely to get measles.

Wronger than right, you have really crapped in your hat. If 100,000
children, of whom 90% are vaccinated, and 600 get measles, this means
that 0.6 % of the children got measles. If only 400 non vaccinated
kids got measles, that means that only 0.4% got measles. This means
that vaccination DOES NOT WORK, and that 1.5 times more kids who were
vaccinated got measles over those who were not vaccinated. Since many
kids will develop severe side-effects from the vaccinations and some
will even die, I suggest that you may wish to reconsider vaccinating
any child.

Your math gives new meaning to the old axiom of "there are figures,
there are numbers, and then there are damned statistics." Or perhaps,
"figures don't lie, but liars always figure."

DrCee
A proponent for the health truth, and not the disease profit.

Do you get it now? If you are vaccinated, chances that you get measles
are 0.67%. If you are NOT vaccinated, your chances rise to 4%.
And remember, those 60% are far from correct. There was a measle-
epidemic in Swiss town last year, 80 children became sick. 78 were not
at all vaccinated, the remaining 2 only once. And this year, there
were already 414 cases within Switzerland. Almost all of them were not
vaccinated, complications occurred exclusively in not-vaccinated
children.
(German:
http://www.wochen-zeitung.ch/index.asp?RubrikID=2&ArtikelID=18525)

Besides this, quite some research has been done since autism was
linked to MMR. And there is still no evidence for its linkage. Just
search PubMed, you'll see. Here is one of the most important ones:

"SanHolo" <help.you.i....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1185789464.418493.129630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...



Do you get it now? If you are vaccinated, chances that you get measles
are 0.67%. If you are NOT vaccinated, your chances rise to 4%.
And remember, those 60% are far from correct. There was a measle-
epidemic in Swiss town last year, 80 children became sick. 78 were not
at all vaccinated, the remaining 2 only once. And this year, there
were already 414 cases within Switzerland. Almost all of them were not
vaccinated, complications occurred exclusively in not-vaccinated
children.
(German:
http://www.wochen-zeitung.ch/index.asp?RubrikID=2&ArtikelID=18525)

You shouldn't suppress measles, so why crow about doing that?

"78 were not at all vaccinated" "complications occurred exclusively in
not-vaccinated
children"

Yeah! My arse. That has to be a great lie, and they lie every day, eg by
saying MMR doesn't kill and is safe. And is effective when deaths declined
by 99.4% before vax, so no evidence it does or did anything.

After three years of study, a Medical Working Group representing 180 Swiss
medical doctors specializing in general medicine, internal medicine and
pediatrics published an article in the Spring 1992 Journal of Anthroposophic
Medicine entitled "The Immunization Campaign Against Measles, Mumps and
Rubella, Coercion Leading to Uncertainy: Medical Objections to a Continued
MMR Immunization Campaign in Switzerland," concluding that mandatory, mass
vaccination with MMR vaccine is ineffective and dangerous.

Now more kids die from MMR than would be dying from measles.



Besides this, quite some research has been done since autism was
linked to MMR. And there is still no evidence for its linkage. Just
search PubMed, you'll see. Here is one of the most important ones:

you can find anything to prove just what you want on Pubmed as most
(probably all) of the vaccine articles are funded by vaccine companies and
who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

you can see all of the studies showing vaccines don't cause autism here, and
all turn out to be junk science putting it politelyhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
Fombonne is a case in pointhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

"Pichichero has acknowledged financial links with Eli Lilly & Company, the
developers of thiomersal and the main target (to date) of US autism
litigation. In an article back in April 2000 in the American Academy of
Family Physicians newsletter, Dr. Pichichero made the following disclosures
of interest: he had received research grants from Abbott Laboratories,
Bristol-Myers Sqibb Company, Eli Lilly (note), Merck, Pasteur Merieux
Connaught, Pfizer Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, Roussel-Uclaf, Schering
Corporation, SmithKline Beecham, Upjohn, and Wyeth-Lederle."----- [July
2004] MMR and Acquired Autism (Autistic Enterocolitis) - A Briefing Note by
David Thrower

Sure. Do you think that you start convincing me by telling that
everything which goes FOR immunization is a lie and sponsored by big
bad pharma while everything which opposes vaccination is the truth by
linking to your own website? Oh yeah, Mr. Wakefield (who wanted to
show that MMR is linked to autism) of course <a href="http://www.faz.net/s/Rub9D1EE68AC11C4C50AC3F3509F354677D/Doc~EC63B7196515B46...">did
not take money from anti-vaccination lobbyists</a> (link in german). I
am sure claiming so is a big big lie.

I don't want to go into more detail here since this is useless, but
let me give you the following link. It was created for anti-
vaccination-fundamentalists like you, John, who still believe that
measles dropped before vaccination began, which is not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

But I assume this link and the whole website must be a big lie, too...

On Jul 30, 5:23 pm, "JOHN" <j...@btinternet.com> wrote:



"SanHolo" <help.you.i....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1185789464.418493.129630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Do you get it now? If you are vaccinated, chances that you get measles
are 0.67%. If you are NOT vaccinated, your chances rise to 4%.
And remember, those 60% are far from correct. There was a measle-
epidemic in Swiss town last year, 80 children became sick. 78 were not
at all vaccinated, the remaining 2 only once. And this year, there
were already 414 cases within Switzerland. Almost all of them were not
vaccinated, complications occurred exclusively in not-vaccinated
children.
(German:
http://www.wochen-zeitung.ch/index.asp?RubrikID=2&ArtikelID=18525)

You shouldn't suppress measles, so why crow about doing that?

"78 were not at all vaccinated" "complications occurred exclusively in
not-vaccinated
children"

Yeah! My arse. That has to be a great lie, and they lie every day, eg by
saying MMR doesn't kill and is safe. And is effective when deaths declined
by 99.4% before vax, so no evidence it does or did anything.

After three years of study, a Medical Working Group representing 180 Swiss
medical doctors specializing in general medicine, internal medicine and
pediatrics published an article in the Spring 1992 Journal of Anthroposophic
Medicine entitled "The Immunization Campaign Against Measles, Mumps and
Rubella, Coercion Leading to Uncertainy: Medical Objections to a Continued
MMR Immunization Campaign in Switzerland," concluding that mandatory, mass
vaccination with MMR vaccine is ineffective and dangerous.

Now more kids die from MMR than would be dying from measles.

Besides this, quite some research has been done since autism was
linked to MMR. And there is still no evidence for its linkage. Just
search PubMed, you'll see. Here is one of the most important ones:

you can find anything to prove just what you want on Pubmed as most
(probably all) of the vaccine articles are funded by vaccine companies and
who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

you can see all of the studies showing vaccines don't cause autism here, and
all turn out to be junk science putting it politelyhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
Fombonne is a case in pointhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

"Pichichero has acknowledged financial links with Eli Lilly & Company, the
developers of thiomersal and the main target (to date) of US autism
litigation. In an article back in April 2000 in the American Academy of
Family Physicians newsletter, Dr. Pichichero made the following disclosures
of interest: he had received research grants from Abbott Laboratories,
Bristol-Myers Sqibb Company, Eli Lilly (note), Merck, Pasteur Merieux
Connaught, Pfizer Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, Roussel-Uclaf, Schering
Corporation, SmithKline Beecham, Upjohn, and Wyeth-Lederle."----- [July
2004] MMR and Acquired Autism (Autistic Enterocolitis) - A Briefing Note by
David Thrower- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't want to go into more detail here since this is useless, but
let me give you the following link. It was created for anti-
vaccination-fundamentalists like you, John, who still believe that
measles dropped before vaccination began, which is not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

But I assume this link and the whole website must be a big lie, too...

Sure. Do you think that you start convincing me by telling that
everything which goes FOR immunization is a lie and sponsored by big
bad pharma while everything which opposes vaccination is the truth by
linking to your own website? Oh yeah, Mr. Wakefield (who wanted to
show that MMR is linked to autism) of course <a href="http://
www.faz.net/s/Rub9D1EE68AC11C4C50AC3F3509F354677D/Doc~EC63B7196515B464D9C345BA3990C6991~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html">did
not take money from anti-vaccination lobbyists</a> (link in german). I
am sure claiming so is a big big lie.

I don't want to go into more detail here since this is useless, but
let me give you the following link. It was created for anti-
vaccination-fundamentalists like you, John, who still believe that
measles dropped before vaccination began, which is not true.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready

But I assume this link and the whole website must be a big lie, too...

On Jul 30, 5:23 pm, "JOHN" <j...@btinternet.com> wrote:
"SanHolo" <help.you.i....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1185789464.418493.129630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...



Do you get it now? If you are vaccinated, chances that you get measles
are 0.67%. If you are NOT vaccinated, your chances rise to 4%.
And remember, those 60% are far from correct. There was a measle-
epidemic in Swiss town last year, 80 children became sick. 78 were not
at all vaccinated, the remaining 2 only once. And this year, there
were already 414 cases within Switzerland. Almost all of them were not
vaccinated, complications occurred exclusively in not-vaccinated
children.
(German:
http://www.wochen-zeitung.ch/index.asp?RubrikID=2&ArtikelID=18525)

You shouldn't suppress measles, so why crow about doing that?

"78 were not at all vaccinated" "complications occurred exclusively in
not-vaccinated
children"

Yeah! My arse. That has to be a great lie, and they lie every day, eg by
saying MMR doesn't kill and is safe. And is effective when deaths declined
by 99.4% before vax, so no evidence it does or did anything.

After three years of study, a Medical Working Group representing 180 Swiss
medical doctors specializing in general medicine, internal medicine and
pediatrics published an article in the Spring 1992 Journal of Anthroposophic
Medicine entitled "The Immunization Campaign Against Measles, Mumps and
Rubella, Coercion Leading to Uncertainy: Medical Objections to a Continued
MMR Immunization Campaign in Switzerland," concluding that mandatory, mass
vaccination with MMR vaccine is ineffective and dangerous.

Now more kids die from MMR than would be dying from measles.



Besides this, quite some research has been done since autism was
linked to MMR. And there is still no evidence for its linkage. Just
search PubMed, you'll see. Here is one of the most important ones:

you can find anything to prove just what you want on Pubmed as most
(probably all) of the vaccine articles are funded by vaccine companies and
who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

you can see all of the studies showing vaccines don't cause autism here, and
all turn out to be junk science putting it
politelyhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html
Fombonne is a case in pointhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

"Pichichero has acknowledged financial links with Eli Lilly & Company, the
developers of thiomersal and the main target (to date) of US autism
litigation. In an article back in April 2000 in the American Academy of
Family Physicians newsletter, Dr. Pichichero made the following disclosures
of interest: he had received research grants from Abbott Laboratories,
Bristol-Myers Sqibb Company, Eli Lilly (note), Merck, Pasteur Merieux
Connaught, Pfizer Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, Roussel-Uclaf, Schering
Corporation, SmithKline Beecham, Upjohn, and Wyeth-Lederle."----- [July
2004] MMR and Acquired Autism (Autistic Enterocolitis) - A Briefing Note by
David Thrower

On Jul 29, 11:52 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
In article <39SdnW81wac18jXbnZ2dnUVZ8t2sn...@bt.com>,
The number of cases, however, dropped like a stone once the
vaccine came into wide use, and has stayed very low ever since.

The incidence of soap use, better nutrition, and other factors also
came into wide use, and measles has stayed low ever since. Convince
me that the injection of the refined puss of rotten eggs into children
is what did the trick.

2) There's no source (other than the unreliable Hilary Butler) for
the claim that over half of measles cases have been in people who
are vaccinated. Vaccination rates are in excess of 90% in many
populations, though, so even if 60% of cases did occur in the
vaccinated population, it still means the vaccine is working.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. 60% of the cases did occur in the
vaccinated population and it means the vaccine is working to prevent
measles? What kind of convoluted thinking are you using? Or are you
just using some kind of new math that the rest of us do not
understand?

Here's an example to make it clearer. Suppose we have 100,000
children and the population is 90% vaccinated. Let's say there
are 1000 cases of measles in one year, and 60% of them are in
vaccinated children.

OK: 90,000 children are vaccinated, 10,000 are not. 600 of the
vaccinated kids get measles, 400 unvaccinated get measles. That
means that the odds of a vaccinated child getting measles are
600/90,000, or 0.67%, and the odds of a vaccinated child getting
measles are 400/10000, or 4%. Thus, the vaccinated child is six
times more likely to get measles.


Wronger than right, you have really crapped in your hat. If 100,000
children, of whom 90% are vaccinated, and 600 get measles, this means
that 0.6 % of the children got measles.

If only 400 non vaccinated
kids got measles, that means that only 0.4% got measles.

This means
that vaccination DOES NOT WORK, and that 1.5 times more kids who were
vaccinated got measles over those who were not vaccinated. Since many
kids will develop severe side-effects from the vaccinations and some
will even die, I suggest that you may wish to reconsider vaccinating
any child.

Your math gives new meaning to the old axiom of "there are figures,
there are numbers, and then there are damned statistics." Or perhaps,
"figures don't lie, but liars always figure."

DrCee
A proponent for the health truth, and not the disease profit.

In article <1185770193.006382.294...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:52 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
In article <39SdnW81wac18jXbnZ2dnUVZ8t2sn...@bt.com>,
The number of cases, however, dropped like a stone once the
vaccine came into wide use, and has stayed very low ever since.

The incidence of soap use, better nutrition, and other factors also
came into wide use, and measles has stayed low ever since. Convince
me that the injection of the refined puss of rotten eggs into children
is what did the trick.

Cee, you really are such an incredible moron. Tell me about the major
changes in soap use and nutrition that just happened to come on the
scene in the late 1960s to cause the spectacular drop in measles
cases. Don't be shy, now.

2) There's no source (other than the unreliable Hilary Butler) for
the claim that over half of measles cases have been in people who
are vaccinated. Vaccination rates are in excess of 90% in many
populations, though, so even if 60% of cases did occur in the
vaccinated population, it still means the vaccine is working.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. 60% of the cases did occur in the
vaccinated population and it means the vaccine is working to prevent
measles? What kind of convoluted thinking are you using? Or are you
just using some kind of new math that the rest of us do not
understand?

I think most everyone else understood it. You clearly didn't, which
nicely gives the lie to your utterly implausible claims of advanced
degrees. An intelligent 15-year-old would have had not problem
understanding my numbers, which I spelled out in what I thought was
excessive detail. Not for the mentally challenged like you,
obviously.





Here's an example to make it clearer. Suppose we have 100,000
children and the population is 90% vaccinated. Let's say there
are 1000 cases of measles in one year, and 60% of them are in
vaccinated children.

OK: 90,000 children are vaccinated, 10,000 are not. 600 of the
vaccinated kids get measles, 400 unvaccinated get measles. That
means that the odds of a vaccinated child getting measles are
600/90,000, or 0.67%, and the odds of a vaccinated child getting
measles are 400/10000, or 4%. Thus, the vaccinated child is six
times more likely to get measles.

Wronger than right, you have really crapped in your hat. If 100,000
children, of whom 90% are vaccinated, and 600 get measles, this means
that 0.6 % of the children got measles.

Which is what I said. (It's really 0.6666.. % but never mind that).

If only 400 non vaccinated
kids got measles, that means that only 0.4% got measles.

Wrong. There were only 10,000 unvaccinated kids, you illiterate
cretin. 10,000 is 10% of 100,000. And 400 out of 10,000 is 4%,
as I said.

This means
that vaccination DOES NOT WORK, and that 1.5 times more kids who were
vaccinated got measles over those who were not vaccinated. Since many
kids will develop severe side-effects from the vaccinations and some
will even die, I suggest that you may wish to reconsider vaccinating
any child.

Your math gives new meaning to the old axiom of "there are figures,
there are numbers, and then there are damned statistics." Or perhaps,
"figures don't lie, but liars always figure."

And morons like you, who can't do percentages, try to refute people
like me, who can.

DrCee
A proponent for the health truth, and not the disease profit.

Try "DrCee: an ignorant fool who can't do 8th grade arithmetic."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any."
-- Bill Maher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All this death and suffering to protect a human from a non-infectious
dis-ease.

On Jul 30, 6:36 am, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:52 pm, wri...@l1000.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

Here's an example to make it clearer. Suppose we have 100,000
children and the population is 90% vaccinated. Let's say there
are 1000 cases of measles in one year, and 60% of them are in
vaccinated children.
OK: 90,000 children are vaccinated, 10,000 are not. 600 of the
vaccinated kids get measles, 400 unvaccinated get measles. That
means that the odds of a vaccinated child getting measles are
600/90,000, or 0.67%, and the odds of a vaccinated child getting
measles are 400/10000, or 4%. Thus, the vaccinated child is six
times more likely to get measles.
Wronger than right, you have really crapped in your hat. If 100,000
children, of whom 90% are vaccinated, and 600 get measles, this means
that 0.6 % of the children got measles. If only 400 non vaccinated
kids got measles, that means that only 0.4% got measles. This means
that vaccination DOES NOT WORK, and that 1.5 times more kids who were
vaccinated got measles over those who were not vaccinated. Since many
kids will develop severe side-effects from the vaccinations and some
will even die, I suggest that you may wish to reconsider vaccinating
any child.

Your math gives new meaning to the old axiom of "there are figures,
there are numbers, and then there are damned statistics." Or perhaps,
"figures don't lie, but liars always figure."

DrCee
A proponent for the health truth, and not the disease profit.

Well, mr. "proponent for the health truth", think again. YOUR math is
incorrect. D. Wright already calculated it for you, but let me try
again since you obviously did not get it:

100'000 children, 90% vaccinated. 1'000 of those 100'000 get measles,
60% of those getting measles were vaccinated. that means:

90'000 vaccinated > 600 of them get measles > 0.67%
10'000 not vaccinated > 400 of them get measles > 4%

Do you get it now? If you are vaccinated, chances that you get measles
are 0.67%. If you are NOT vaccinated, your chances rise to 4%.
And remember, those 60% are far from correct. There was a measle-
epidemic in Swiss town last year, 80 children became sick. 78 were not
at all vaccinated, the remaining 2 only once. And this year, there
were already 414 cases within Switzerland. Almost all of them were not
vaccinated, complications occurred exclusively in not-vaccinated
children.
(German: http://www.wochen-zeitung.ch/index.asp?RubrikID=2&ArtikelID=18525)

Besides this, quite some research has been done since autism was
linked to MMR. And there is still no evidence for its linkage. Just
search PubMed, you'll see. Here is one of the most important ones:

In Japan, MMR vaccination was _only_ performed from 1989 to 1993.
There was no single vaccination after 1993. And: There was NO rise in
autism (ASD) for children born during that vaccination period. BUT
there was an increase in ASD for children born _after_ 1993 - the same
age-group which has a higher ASD rate in the UK.
So, increase in ASD, yes. But! Increase even in a population that does
not receive MMR vaccination. Conclusion? It is most unlikely that MMR
is causing ASD.