At 07:55 AM 02/07/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2001, David Lewandowski wrote:

        I did not write the stuff below but I did post it from another site.

>
>> They went on to claim that "exemptors" put the public at
>> risk because 11% of those who got the measles got them from an "exemptor".
>> Think about that statement and do the math for yourself - if 11% of the
>> cases were contracted from an "exemptor, that means 89% were contracted
>> from someone who was vaccinated! It seems like the study really showed that
>> the vaccine didn't work very well when actually put to the test of having
>> to protect someone.
>
>
>A case of selected interpretation ? Here's an extract from the report :
>
>Results  Exemptors were 22.2 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.9-31.1)
>more likely to acquire measles and 5.9 times (95% CI, 4.2-8.2) more likely to
>acquire pertussis than vaccinated children. After adjusting for confounders,
>the frequency of exemptors in a county was associated with the incidence rate
>of measles (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4) and pertussis (RR, 1.9;
>95% CI, 1.7-2.1) in vaccinated children. Schools with pertussis outbreaks had
>more exemptors (mean, 4.3% of students) than schools without outbreaks (1.5%
>of students; P = .001). At least 11% of vaccinated children in measles
>outbreaks acquired infection through contact with an exemptor.
>
>Andy.

        My main point was 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.
        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. 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?
        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.

Dave