David:
> My main point was how effective can something be if is not preventing that
> which it claims to prevent?

Perhaps we can include a "paleo diet" or an "instincto diet" on the list of
things to ask, "how effective can something be if is not preventing that
which it claims to prevent?"

> More importantly, the numbers used are rather low when you consider that
> about 50-60 years ago there were 500,000 cases of measles in this country
> and now there is only about 100. Do you think it was because of the vaccine
> or in spite of it? Consider that in other countries which improved their
> waste management systems had an equal or greater decrease in the prevalence
> of measles without implementing vaccines. This speaks for a disease only
> being able to be manifested in such circumstances which allow a sick body
> to be provided.

The use of the word "only" is unsupported.

> They really need to take the same number of those afflicted in each group
> for comparison. If you only have 12 exemptors out of every 100 people and 5
> get measles then the rate is skewed. Take 1 million of those vaccinated and
> ..1% get measles that's a about 100 people. The group was simply not large
> enough to fully represent effectiveness of anything. You just as easily
> twisted the findings to say the opposite.

Yes! This is exactly what _you_ are doing, no?

> What about the other 999,900 that
> didn't become ill? Why not study those people(obviously not all these will
> be healthy, I mean those without measles) to find out how to stay healthy
> rather then study the minority and how to get sick?

This, of course, is the question that never gets much attention by the
medical community. Kinda like how the fact that unvaccinated people, and/or
people following _your_ diet also get diseases of many sorts. Why not study
the counter-examples to your simplistic logic?

> Now supposing you make your living as a pharmaceutical CEO would you be
> interested in the truth if it compromises your ability to make huge
> profits? What about a pediatrician who gives vaccines and profits a quarter
> of a million dollars a year? How unbiased will their view be? Not very, I
> suspect.

How unbiased are your views?

Cheers,
Kirt